"Michael Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm glad you made that point. If I understand your statement, it's a
> common "gain" cited by Perl 6 (actually Parrot) advocates: you can mix
> languages. But a point I was trying to make was that while this is fun
> for us developers, managers hate i
- Original Message
> From: Brad Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> "let" variables and "hypothetical" assignments within rules may be a
> good starting point.
Hi Brad,
Caveat: I'm also tremendously underqualified to to make serious proposals here.
Interesting idea. As I understand hypoth
Hi,
I used AI::Prolog once briefly, and that's the extent of my logic programming
knowledge. There do seem to be a few Perl 6 features that may be useful for
logic programming, although I'm not really qualified to judge.
How would one assert facts and rules in Perl6? How would one know
that a
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 12:37:31PM +0100, Michael Mathews wrote:
> I use the expat and libxslt libraries (both in C) regularly via perl,
> so I guess I must agree that there is a distinction -- thank you for
> clarifying that. But I can't think of any examples where I was stuck
> because I couldn'
On May 26, 2006, at 6:37 AM, Michael Mathews wrote:
I use the expat and libxslt libraries (both in C) regularly via perl,
so I guess I must agree that there is a distinction -- thank you for
clarifying that. But I can't think of any examples where I was stuck
because I couldn't use a "library" o
* Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-26 13:40]:
> But then I'm seeking to learn here so can you give a nice juicy
> example of a non-C library that would be a big plus to be able
> to include in Perl?
There are several Python projects that I wish I could use without
having to reimplement
"Gabor Szabo" schreef:
> {Cobol etc.]
> IMHO - and I really saw only a few such companies - these companies
> have 0 automatic tests so it would cost them a lot of time and money
> to test their application on the new and shiny Cobol compiler.
I once worked on tests for a national center of a ban
From a language standpoint, I think this is a great solution. As Jonathan
suggests, have a default knowledge base that is referenced by default, with
the option to declare more knowledgebases. Each one can have facts set and
queries exectued seperately. I have only a passing knowledge of Prolog,
[
I am sorry this will not respond directly to the message in question as
I have not seen it in my inbox. I hope the attribution is correct though.
]
On 5/26/06, Dr.Ruud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not really. Think about a Cobol-to-Parrot translator. You could for
>> example use Perl (glu
"Michael Mathews" schreef:
> [attribution repaired] Ruud:
>> [attribution repaired] Michael:
(Michael previously sent me an independent off-list reply; we're back on
the list now)
>>> As I gradually learn how Parrot works, I see that perhaps the idea
>>> of decompiling byte-code into language ___
On 26/05/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-26 12:45]:
> In the end it was decided to rewrite that chunk in Perl. I can
> tell you, there definitely was cursing in the office that day,
> and I doubt anyone there would see it as a plus to hav
* Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-26 12:45]:
> In the end it was decided to rewrite that chunk in Perl. I can
> tell you, there definitely was cursing in the office that day,
> and I doubt anyone there would see it as a plus to have the
> ability to mix languages more easily. I just wo
> As I gradually learn how Parrot works, I see that perhaps the idea of
> decompiling byte-code into language ___ is only a pipe-dream. But the
> point still remains--using the fact that one *could* mix languages X,
> Y, and P into your company's source tree is a very weak argument for
> Parrot/Pe
Hi Affijn,
As I gradually learn how Parrot works, I see that perhaps the idea of
decompiling byte-code into language ___ is only a pipe-dream. But the
point still remains--using the fact that one *could* mix languages X,
Y, and P into your company's source tree is a very weak argument for
Parrot/
"Michael Mathews" schreef:
> [compile down to a *language independent* format]
> So does that mean I can write a module in Perl 6, deliver it to Mr.
> Customer as byte-code. Then Mr. Customer can "decompile"(?) it into
> Python (or JavaScript, or C, etc), edit it, and then compile it back
> into w
* Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-25 20:45]:
> The first hurdle would be the syntax. The programmer just
> looking at the code would need to know when one section of code
> represents a snippet of logic programming. Is the following a
> function call or a Prolog fact?
>
> loves( 'foo', 'bar'
Hmm...
How about this:
Treat each knowledge base as an object, with at least two methods:
.fact() takes the argument list and constructs a prolog-like fact or
rule out of it, which then gets added to the knowledge base.
.query() takes the argument list, constructs a prolog-like query out
of it,
Hi Steffen,
I'm glad you made that point. If I understand your statement, it's a
common "gain" cited by Perl 6 (actually Parrot) advocates: you can mix
languages. But a point I was trying to make was that while this is fun
for us developers, managers hate it, with very good reason. Having one
cru
"Michael Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So my question to the list is, in simple terms even an IT manager
> could grasp, explain what problems Perl 5 has that Perl 6 fixes,
> such that they would want to undergo the pain of ever switching.
>From a Perl point of view: there should be no pai
ons to the list.
Web Programming with Perl -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
- Forwarded Message
From: Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: perl6-users@perl.org
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:40:54 AM
Subject: Re: Logic Programming for Perl6 (Was Re: 3 Good Reasons... (typo
ale
- Original Message
From: David Romano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > duplicate results and this is almost always wrong. (See
> > http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/28378
> > for an SQL example of this problem).
> I re-read your journal entry and comments (I had read it back when you
> first had
This topic may be better suited to perl6-language, unless you consider
its denizens to already be self-selected against logic programming. :)
Larry
Hi Ovid,
On 5/24/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As an aside for those who, like me, wanted to see support for logic
programming: the only significant disappoinment I have with Perl6 is also,
oddly enough, accompanied by a sigh of relief. Perl6 will easily support
imperative, functional
* Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-25 00:45]:
> Is there something in Perl 6 akin to a "use strict" switch that
> will apply the straightjacket some projects need, and thus
> force typing of all variables. (Then I could have a good
> comeback for those damned Java guys.)
It’s called Co
Thanks for that Ovid. I agree that any language must stand on it's
merits in the long-term, but there is an undeniable "hump" every new
language must get over to convince people it's worth trying in the
first place.
From your excellent summary I think speed, CLR and real OO should
definitely ma
Ah, perfect example Daniel. I know people say things like "Java is
better for big projects because of the strictness of it's typing". I
respond that Perl isn't intrinsically sloppy if you practice good
coding, it just doesn't straightjacket you into that all the time.
So here's Perl 6 and it has
Sheesh. I type things too fast and then I see the horrifying typos I've made
(blush)
- Original Message
From: Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> do things that is hard to do in other languages.
"do things that *are* hard to do in other languages"
> Perl6 not only fixes a lot of that cruft bu
- Original Message
From: Michael Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So my question to the list is, in simple terms even an IT manager
> could grasp, explain what problems Perl 5 has that Perl 6 fixes, such
> that they would want to undergo the pain of ever switching.
Hi Michael,
Many comp
> what problems Perl 5 has that Perl 6 fixes
A type system to die for.
I think that is enough of a win on its own that mentioning any of the
other features will only muddy the issue :->
--
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who
are laughed at are geniuses. The
Open Question:
I realise I haven't kept up with every detail since the Perl6 RFC I
submitted way back in August 2000, but boy was I surprised to find,
now that I can actually use Perl6, it isn't just an improvement to
Perl (5), it's actually a "different language" (I'm quoting Michael
Schwern the
30 matches
Mail list logo
