Re: Is this program OOP?

On 12/11/2024 12:40 AM, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:59:18 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:

On 10/12/2024 17:35, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 17:04:37 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:

On 10/12/2024 10:23, wij wrote:

Very dubious, show us what you say is true.
>

>
Prolog is a language that is ideally suited to such problems.
Basically, you give the language a bunch of objects and facts and
relations about those objects, then you ask it questions about them.
It's at least 35 years since I tried Prolog one afternoon, and that's
exactly the kind of task I played with (though a bit smaller).

>
I found Prolog an absolute bugger of a language. Beyond simple clauses it
never did what I expected it to do. Its the one language I never really
got. I think it requires a certain mindset or way of thinking.
>

>
Having only tried it for a short time as a teenager, it's not fair for
me to judge it - but it is certainly quite a different kind of language
from C++!

>
We had to use it in the AI module at uni. :/
>
I suspect its raison d'etre has rather been shot down these days as AI has
moved away from propositional logic to neural networks.
>

Mechanized inference is at least three things:
expert systems
statistical inference
neural networks
and "AI offerings" generally always have each.
LISP is what it is and still very much a thing,
I'm not so much into s-expressions and so on,
and it's recursive sort of declaration is a bit,
you know, functional, yet though LISP and Prolog
and friends have been running "AI" since for example
the '80's at least since Moravec said "you know
we've had human-level AI for a while, ....".
It's moreso that various un-truths about the actual
implementations of AI offerings are designed to
reduce liability with regards to things like
"well it doesn't really think, and thus be
responsible for its actions, the dictates".
Giant cheap floating-point units, ....