From Newsgroup: sci.math

Hi,

The perfect "olive oil business",
just follow these steps:

Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
- Start without having a WAM, etc..
up your sleves

Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
- Instead build a nonsense layer on
top of existing WAMs, etc..

Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
- Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
tricks like a "why?" component or some
fuzzy truth intervalls.

Step 4:
- Profit!

Bye

P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Hi,

Ok, this is fun, I didn't do Logtalk bashing
for a while. But Logtalk is definitively
over engineered in a bad sense.

Logtalk is the opposite of Jazz. Its more like
Jazz player taking valium and becoming a
harmonica player. But the Jazz players are

also less lucky. We now find a s(CASP) grave
yard in logic programming, did the Yale
Shooting problem shoot their foot?

Logtalk features ton of test cases and a ton
of adapters. But hell no, where are the test
results. I didn't find them on GitHub.

Maybe should have a look again.

Bye

P.S.: The test cases are possibly a do it
yourself service for the Prolog community.
Problem millions of OS-es and still the

idea that a Prolog system is built from
source, so millions of build platforms.
No money or resource left to do a GeekBech.

Too busy with grokking abduction/deduction .

https://www.geekbench.com/

A Geek bench taps into standards like
Vulcan etc.. We even don't have a scripting
standard for Prolog systems itself.

How a Prolog processor starts its work is
left open by the ISO core standard, and
there is no PIP adressing the problem

for a set of common platforms.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

The perfect "olive oil business",
just follow these steps:

Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
- Start without having a WAM, etc..
-a up your sleves

Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
- Instead build a nonsense layer on
-a top of existing WAMs, etc..

Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
- Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
-a tricks like a "why?" component or some
-a fuzzy truth intervalls.

Step 4:
- Profit!

Bye

P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Hi,

Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit.
A mixture of bloat combined with bloat, and
on top of it some cherry bloat:

test(lgt_format_2_tab_table_pip_0110_01, true(Assertion)) :-
^^set_text_output(''),
{format("left~tright", [])},
^^text_output_assertion('leftright', Assertion).

Woa! Its not that invoking a clause would be
used, which can succeed and fail. No a truth
value needs to be reified. Many frameworks do

that and then compute an expect (*) style DSL.
Meaning we have suddently two languages, the
Prolog language which can deal with with success

and failure, and then a DSL which will deal
with success and failure. Now put the whole thing
into classes, where a default method needs to

be invoked via (^^)/1 because Logtalk is too
stupid to resolve default methods without the
need to write (^^)/1. It might make sense here,

where its practically a super:

init :-
assertz(counter(0)),
^^init.

But otherwise, why?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Ok, this is fun, I didn't do Logtalk bashing
for a while. But Logtalk is definitively
over engineered in a bad sense.

Logtalk is the opposite of Jazz. Its more like
Jazz player taking valium and becoming a
harmonica player. But the Jazz players are

also less lucky. We now find a s(CASP) grave
yard in logic programming, did the Yale
Shooting problem shoot their foot?

Logtalk features ton of test cases and a ton
of adapters. But hell no, where are the test
results. I didn't find them on GitHub.

Maybe should have a look again.

Bye

P.S.: The test cases-a are possibly a do it
yourself service for the Prolog community.
Problem millions of OS-es and still the

idea that a Prolog system is built from
source, so millions of build platforms.
No money or resource left to do a GeekBech.

Too busy with grokking abduction/deduction .

https://www.geekbench.com/

A Geek bench taps into standards like
Vulcan etc.. We even don't have a scripting
standard for Prolog systems itself.

How a Prolog processor starts its work is
left open by the ISO core standard, and
there is no PIP adressing the problem

for a set of common platforms.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

The perfect "olive oil business",
just follow these steps:

Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
- Start without having a WAM, etc..
-a-a up your sleves

Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
- Instead build a nonsense layer on
-a-a top of existing WAMs, etc..

Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
- Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
-a-a tricks like a "why?" component or some
-a-a fuzzy truth intervalls.

Step 4:
- Profit!

Bye

P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Hi,

It takes a lot of guts to related SLD failure of
an empty predicate to CWA:

closed-world assumption
The assumption that what cannot be proved
true is false. Therefore, sending a message
corresponding to a declared but not defined
predicate, or calling a declared predicate
with no clauses, fails. But messages or
calls to undeclared predicates generate an error. https://logtalk.org/handbook/glossary.html#term-closed-world-assumption

I mean all he wants to say is that an empty
predicate doesn't have a throw catchall clause.

Nothing to do with CWA. CWA is a mathematical
concept postulating that from G |/- A we want
to jump to G |-_CWA ~A. Its not that the

predicate in questions would be called with
a negation in front, and that we would really
be interested in a "is false".

Even if SWI has rebranded "fail" into "false"
in the top-level, its still most often
a SLD result, and not a CWA result.

At least the key phrase still uses "fails",
when he writes "calling a declared predicate
with no clauses, fails". It could be worse

if he would really apply the CWA and write
calling a declared predicate with no clauses,
is false". Such a conclusion can only be

detected in logic by querying ~A, while he
still deals with a query A.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit.
A mixture of bloat combined with bloat, and
on top of it some cherry bloat:

-a-a-a test(lgt_format_2_tab_table_pip_0110_01, true(Assertion)) :-
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^set_text_output(''),
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a {format("left~tright", [])},
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^text_output_assertion('leftright', Assertion).

Woa! Its not that invoking a clause would be
used, which can succeed and fail. No a truth
value needs to be reified. Many frameworks do

that and then compute an expect (*) style DSL.
Meaning we have suddently two languages, the
Prolog language which can deal with with success

and failure, and then a DSL which will deal
with success and failure. Now put the whole thing
into classes, where a default method needs to

be invoked via (^^)/1 because Logtalk is too
stupid to resolve default methods without the
need to write (^^)/1. It might make sense here,

where its practically a super:

init :-
-a-a-a assertz(counter(0)),
-a-a-a ^^init.

But otherwise, why?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Ok, this is fun, I didn't do Logtalk bashing
for a while. But Logtalk is definitively
over engineered in a bad sense.

Logtalk is the opposite of Jazz. Its more like
Jazz player taking valium and becoming a
harmonica player. But the Jazz players are

also less lucky. We now find a s(CASP) grave
yard in logic programming, did the Yale
Shooting problem shoot their foot?

Logtalk features ton of test cases and a ton
of adapters. But hell no, where are the test
results. I didn't find them on GitHub.

Maybe should have a look again.

Bye

P.S.: The test cases-a are possibly a do it
yourself service for the Prolog community.
Problem millions of OS-es and still the

idea that a Prolog system is built from
source, so millions of build platforms.
No money or resource left to do a GeekBech.

Too busy with grokking abduction/deduction .

https://www.geekbench.com/

A Geek bench taps into standards like
Vulcan etc.. We even don't have a scripting
standard for Prolog systems itself.

How a Prolog processor starts its work is
left open by the ISO core standard, and
there is no PIP adressing the problem

for a set of common platforms.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

The perfect "olive oil business",
just follow these steps:

Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
- Start without having a WAM, etc..
-a-a up your sleves

Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
- Instead build a nonsense layer on
-a-a top of existing WAMs, etc..

Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
- Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
-a-a tricks like a "why?" component or some
-a-a fuzzy truth intervalls.

Step 4:
- Profit!

Bye

P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.math

Hi,

Ha Ha, the AI Boom leaves its traces:

The theme will be rCLReimagining Resilience:
Empowering Local Communities in a Time of
Uncertain Federal SupportrCY A follow-on event
will be held at the Pentagon from April 15th-16th, 2026. https://star-tides.net/

Don't be afraid, of the sustained Layoff
Tsunamis and Defunding Rounds. There
are a lot of Burger jobs still around,

Sandwich artist is a respected job.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

It takes a lot of guts to related SLD failure of
an empty predicate to CWA:

closed-world assumption
The assumption that what cannot be proved
true is false. Therefore, sending a message
corresponding to a declared but not defined
predicate, or calling a declared predicate
with no clauses, fails. But messages or
calls to undeclared predicates generate an error. https://logtalk.org/handbook/glossary.html#term-closed-world-assumption

I mean all he wants to say is that an empty
predicate doesn't have a throw catchall clause.

Nothing to do with CWA. CWA is a mathematical
concept postulating that from G |/- A we want
to jump to G |-_CWA ~A. Its not that the

predicate in questions would be called with
a negation in front, and that we would really
be interested in a "is false".

Even if SWI has rebranded "fail" into "false"
in the top-level, its still most often
a SLD result, and not a CWA result.

At least the key phrase still uses "fails",
when he writes "calling a declared predicate
with no clauses, fails". It could be worse

if he would really apply the CWA and write
calling a declared predicate with no clauses,
is false". Such a conclusion can only be

detected in logic by querying ~A, while he
still deals with a query A.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Logtalk just creates its own island of PlUnit.
A mixture of bloat combined with bloat, and
on top of it some cherry bloat:

-a-a-a-a test(lgt_format_2_tab_table_pip_0110_01, true(Assertion)) :-
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^set_text_output(''),
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a {format("left~tright", [])},
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ^^text_output_assertion('leftright', Assertion).

Woa! Its not that invoking a clause would be
used, which can succeed and fail. No a truth
value needs to be reified. Many frameworks do

that and then compute an expect (*) style DSL.
Meaning we have suddently two languages, the
Prolog language which can deal with with success

and failure, and then a DSL which will deal
with success and failure. Now put the whole thing
into classes, where a default method needs to

be invoked via (^^)/1 because Logtalk is too
stupid to resolve default methods without the
need to write (^^)/1. It might make sense here,

where its practically a super:

init :-
-a-a-a-a assertz(counter(0)),
-a-a-a-a ^^init.

But otherwise, why?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Ok, this is fun, I didn't do Logtalk bashing
for a while. But Logtalk is definitively
over engineered in a bad sense.

Logtalk is the opposite of Jazz. Its more like
Jazz player taking valium and becoming a
harmonica player. But the Jazz players are

also less lucky. We now find a s(CASP) grave
yard in logic programming, did the Yale
Shooting problem shoot their foot?

Logtalk features ton of test cases and a ton
of adapters. But hell no, where are the test
results. I didn't find them on GitHub.

Maybe should have a look again.

Bye

P.S.: The test cases-a are possibly a do it
yourself service for the Prolog community.
Problem millions of OS-es and still the

idea that a Prolog system is built from
source, so millions of build platforms.
No money or resource left to do a GeekBech.

Too busy with grokking abduction/deduction .

https://www.geekbench.com/

A Geek bench taps into standards like
Vulcan etc.. We even don't have a scripting
standard for Prolog systems itself.

How a Prolog processor starts its work is
left open by the ISO core standard, and
there is no PIP adressing the problem

for a set of common platforms.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

The perfect "olive oil business",
just follow these steps:

Step 1: Avoid the pain of a Prolog vendor
- Start without having a WAM, etc..
-a-a up your sleves

Step 2: Take the easy route of gooey bloath:
- Instead build a nonsense layer on
-a-a top of existing WAMs, etc..

Step 3: Take the easy route of AI winter nonsense:
- Add some 80's Expert System nonsense, oldest
-a-a tricks like a "why?" component or some
-a-a fuzzy truth intervalls.

Step 4:
- Profit!

Bye

P.S.: Logtalk also missed that OOP is dead.
Everybody does now DOP. Data oriented programming.
Less ontology engineering more complex functionality.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2