ISO is loosing it because it gives in to Teachers (Was: Teachers have better quality than Nerds)

Hi,
ISO is loosing it because it gives in to Teachers.
GUPU from Ulrich Neumerkel is also a Teaching project.
Notebooks can be also viewed as a Teaching project.
Still there were once rumors that Prolog was used
in Industry. But this was long long ago, and these
roots are possibly totally gone.
I don't believe anybody is using CLP or s(CASP).
Or CLP(Z) from Scryer Prolog. Also the USA
compiler builders are total cluless about logic,
and USA is dominant when it comes to compiler
builder. Take the dissertation of
Combining Analyses, Combining Optimizations
Clifford Noel Click, Jr. -  February, 1995
He does't know a bit how conditional constant
propagation relates to logic.
Bye
P.S.: Compiler builders never had a formal education
in mathematical logic. Not enough time. They
were always busy in guzzling in machine code
operations, building highly sophisticated tables
that describe the machine code operations and
building simlarly highly sophisticated backends,
that are sniffing these tables. You don't find
such People in Prolog anymore. Somebody that
knows aassembly, just like Linus Torwald started...
Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,
 Of course Teachers have better quality
than Nerds when they formulate questions.
Better reseacherd. But the goal of a teacher
 is always orthodoxification. So ensentially
SWI-Prolog discourse is abused as a wiki,
with dozen of questions and answer harnessing
 hundred of links. The food that teachers need.
 Bye
 P.S.: Its obvious what is killed in the process:
- Get rid of silly WAM and ZIP!
- Going towards web 2.0 with Prolog
- The AU Boom and Prolog
- What else...?
 Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,
>
Now SWI-Prolog has amassed 1/4 Million of
student notebooks, the SWI-Prolog discourse
has become a cest pool of stupid teachers
>
asking stupid questions. Development and
innovation in Prolog has totally stalled.
All Prolog systems are based on completely
>
silly WAM or ZIP, and cannot run this trivial
constant caching test case in linear time:
>
data(1,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
data(2,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
data(3,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
>
test(N) :- between(1,1000000,_), data(N, _), fail; true.
>
Here some results:
>
/* Trealla Prolog 2.74.10 */
>
?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
% Time elapsed 0.236s, 3000004 Inferences, 12.692 MLips
% Time elapsed 0.318s, 3000004 Inferences, 9.429 MLips
% Time elapsed 0.371s, 3000004 Inferences, 8.095 MLips
>
/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-411 */
>
?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
    % CPU time: 0.793s, 7_000_100 inferences
    % CPU time: 1.150s, 7_000_100 inferences
    % CPU time: 1.481s, 7_000_100 inferences
>
Guess what formerly Jekejeke Prolog and Dogelog
Player show? They are not based on WAM or ZIP.
Its rather DAM, Dogelog Abtract Machine.
>
Bye
>
Mild Shock schrieb:

Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
>
 > don’t think it could really do
 > the “ghost text” effect.
>
It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
>
But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
>
 > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
>
Well you don’t use it for your primary
typing completion which is preferably fast.
The first response might give context information,
for the second request which provides a
different type of completion.
>
But the first response is not responsible
for any timing towards the second request.
That anyway happens in the client. And it
doesn’t hurt if the first response is
from a stupid channel.
>
Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!

>