[OT] Mailing List Problem (was Re: Three Threads Of Squeak)

Russell Allen russell.allen at firebirdmedia.com
Thu Nov 8 01:49:45 UTC 2001


'qy' was obviously not what I wanted to say :)

However, this email appeared to have come from my work address and yet
wasn't bounced from the email list.

Doesn't this list refuse mails from people who aren't subscribed, or has
that changed?  I assume that I'm not subscribed by my work email
address, otherwise I would be seeing two lots of every email.

Puzzled,

Russell
 
Russell Allen <russell at austlii.edu.au> wrote:
> qy
> 
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Justin Walsh wrote:
> 
> > > I'd be interested in more intelligent objects, but it's still two year
> > > before I do AI.
> > 
> > Doing  AI is fine, it can't hurt. I was interested in it in the late 80s but
> > chose Expert Systems instead. Experts Systems is a kind trade off, owing to
> > the fact that nobody could agree on just what AI was. (sounds a bit like
> > what I'm being accused of).
> > Expert System do work very well.
> > The prefered language for the Expert System builder is Prolog (although any
> > language will do if you enjoy pain)
> > Basically all you describe is the Knowledge Base.
> > The Inference Engine will allow various Tree Navigation Methods ie
> > Depth First, Breadth First, Hill Climbing and Least Cost. There are actually
> > no instructions if you use the "grunt" Depth First approach.
> > If you decide to take control of the Navigation yourself then you have two
> > instructions you can use The "cut" and the "fail". It was in those days
> > notoriously lacking in file handling capabilities and OO was unheard of.
> > That is all changing now.
> > Ok now to the bad news. At the Enterprise level (zero) there were no proper
> > design methodologies for Prolog. The best that they could offer me was
> > Binary Relation and Semantic Modelling. Both are dismal failures. Because of
> > that Prolog was dumped from some of the larges projects in Australia:
> > Telecom and the AMP.
> > So Smalltalk is not alone in that regard.
> > There is only one Methodology that is suitable for designing Hierarchical
> > Knowledge Bases that I know of and that is   http://ripose.com/
> > It treats the Expert System as a Business Expert (iterative level 1,2,3).
> > Whilst it assumes a higher Corporate Expert position (level 0).
> > Smalltalk Play (experiment) at (level 4) is missing both these levels.
> > If Smalltalk is happy at this level then it does not really need any of the
> > levels above it.
> > It is already, in respect of its Purpose, successfull.
> > Some disatisfied person ported Mike Tengs Prolog to Digitalk/V (PCXT) and
> > the V286.
> > It's great!
> > K Bolot http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1000
> > Prolog enthusiast  http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/574
> > Best I stop here
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary McGovern" <garywork at lineone.net>
> > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Doug Way" <dway at riskmetrics.com>
> > > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:25 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Three Threads Of Squeak
> > >
> > >
> > > > Anyway, let's consider the three levels.  In what way does Squeak not
> > > support the Conceptual and Logistical levels?  Are you implying that
> > another
> > > language/environment/tool does support all three levels?
> > > >
> > > > Squeak/Smalltalk is a high-level language relative to most commonly used
> > > programming languages (e.g. C++, Java, Basic, Perl, etc.).  And it is
> > > reflective and includes an IDE, written in itself, which lets you analyze
> > > code at a higher level than a text editor, and also lets you build tools
> > to
> > > potentially analyze at a higher level still.  Thus it should be able to
> > > support the sort of higher-level thinking you're talking about
> > (conceptual,
> > > logistical) better than most others.
> > > >
> > > > Granted, it might be nice to have more tool support built-in for this
> > sort
> > > of higher-level thinking.  But existing Squeak tools like ThingLab and
> > Ned's
> > > ConnectorMorphs sort of point in this direction.  (I'm not sure exactly
> > how
> > > "high-level" we're talking.)
> > >
> > > Hello Doug,
> > > I'd like to mention a couple of points here. Justin mentioned Prolog to me
> > > offline and following Alan's citation url a few messages back, Man -
> > > Computer symbiosis is mentioned, and a key inference of that idea would be
> > > greater intelligence on the part of the computer.
> > >
> > > I'd be interested in more intelligent objects, but it's still two year
> > > before I do AI.
> > >
> > > Perhaps that's what Justin is getting at.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Gary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list