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