Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bcsaic.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!shebs From: shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Bugs, and more bugs... Message-ID: <173@bcsaic.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 15:13:34 EDT Article-I.D.: bcsaic.173 Posted: Tue Jul 2 15:13:34 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 09:17:30 EDT References: <2909@decwrl.UUCP> Reply-To: shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center Lines: 21 Summary: In article <2909@decwrl.UUCP> vantreeck@logic.DEC writes: >(particularly bad are those Prologs with LISP-like syntax) to something that is >more natural to the uninitiated. The ":-", ",", and ";" of DEC-10 and C-Prolog, >should be replaced with "IF", "AND", and "OR". I just don't understand this! Why should a language's syntax be mangled to facilitate its use by the "uninitiated"? Contrary to some claims, Prolog will never be used by upper management types - it's a *language*, not a mail system! If all Prologs lived up the standard set by some (and by some Lisps), surface syntax would not be an issue - everybody could mung it as desired. The *abstract syntax* is the important thing, as everybody in the Lisp world has known for years. The other comments are about semantics, and I agree that LP languages in general and Prolog in particular are in a very unsettled state these days. On the other hand, I prefer this to an uncritical acceptance of a language that will probably be obsolete in a few years (a la Fortran). stan shebs