🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <883@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>> >some of the early stuff looked uncommonly like Sigma Prolog.
> 
>> Frank McCabe gave up the chairmanship of the syntax committee last summer
>What has Frank McCabe to do with anything?  

Simply that Frank is the (major) author of sigmaProlog.

>Look, I'm not interested in who is doing what, whose ideas are good,
>whose ideas are bad, who is chairman, or any of that.  

I'm not trying to "bring personalities into it" but in the real world
it is often the easiest way to explain positions. You, Richard,
believe in the nuances of "Edinburgh Prolog" partly because you use
it every day, have contributed many valuable details to it, and see
your ideas worked out in it. There's nothing wrong in that. Ideas are
not out in world three (whatever Popper may say) but inside real
people's heads.

It surely must be obvious to you that the emergence of sigmaProlog
ideas on the committee was because Frank had a lot to do with it. Nor
is that in itself any bad thing. Because he had worked through many
of the same problems and not infrequently come up with slightly
different solutions, he believed in them too and wanted to promote
them. It's not simply a question of the "not invented here" syndrome;
that's far too simplistic. People design things because they believe
they are the right way of doing things, and that in turn influences
what they believe. 

I deliberately phrase that in almost religious terms, because it's
often not a question of that's right and the other's wrong, but
rather six of one and half a dozen of the other.

>What interests me
>is that there are a lot of Prolog systems which have a great deal in
>common, that there is a Prolog standard being developed, and that this
>standard is far more different from any two of those existing systems
>than they are from each other.

You have made your case and I intend to make sure the committee
understand it. I don't agree that it is "far more different from any
two of those existing systems than they are from each other." That's
a misleading statement that could prejudice people who haven't taken
the trouble you have to analyse the documents. (I'll follow up on the
"var" question tomorrow. It's a DETAIL though obviously an important
one.)

>I am deeply offended that Chris Moss should suggest that I am arguing
>for my employers rather than for what is technically good.  

Richard, this time I have to take YOU to task for not reading what I
wrote, but for the implication of what you thought I might have
written. I wrote:
   I don't object to you arguing for the standard to be based on Quintus.
   You might be considered to be failing your employers if you didn't.

It is others who might make the judgement, not me. You can't escape
from being in the position you are, and I'm sure your employers
allow you to contribute to the net because they feel they (at least)
do not lose by it. This is the big cynical world in which we are. I
still work in the university world and get no retainers (no one
offered :-). But that doesn't mean I'm the honest unbiased person who
can always see clearly. I have my prejudices and make mistakes (as
must be very obvious!).

>    When I complain that the BSI group have wasted their time introducing
>differences where the differences were minor and have largely ignored the
>differences which _are_ a practical problem, I am not being a dog in the
>manger, I am not badmouthing anyone, I am not advocating Quintus Prolog,
>I am stating what is obvious to anyone who has seriously tried to port
>large programs between one "Edinburgh-compatible" dialect and another.

And what I would say is "we need a better forum for taking this
forward". It was a sad day for the BS committee when you flew off to
the States, Richard. Communication has been difficult across 8,000
miles (even tho you've tried hard).

So tho this is not particularly the place to say it: we are trying to
set up a network mailing list in the context of ISO to hammer out the
right position on the 101 issues that need settling. It will not be a
free for all, but nor will it be needlessly limited. The aim is to
have at least one link-person per country, and at the moment the
position for the US is vacant [Richard is already on the list in a
personal capacity].

>What is ISO Prolog?  Which groups are doing the work?  Do people on the
>existing BSI mailing list get all the documents relevant to the ISO work?
>Which document contains the promises made to ISO?

ISO Prolog doesn't yet exist. The aim is to get a draft for the next
meeting which is near Munich at the beginning of October for
publication next year. It will be based on the work of BSI and AFNOR,
but hopefully not have their failings. All documents will not be sent
automatically to everyone on the BS list, but the secretary of the
ISO group is the same Roger Scowen (National Physical Laboratory,
Teddington, Middx, UK), so write to him for details. The documents
setting up the ISO group are quite short and I will consider
submitting them on the net.

Chris.