Python as a boat

There are a lot of funny what-kind-of-X-would-programming-language-Y-be-lists floating around on the internet. And, here's another one from CompSci.ca/blog. I especially like jpc's description of Python (in the comments):

"Python would be a catamaran. Light and functional, with conspicuous spacing."

Exercise 16.1 in PAIP

Suppose you read the headline "Elvis Alive in Kalamazoo" in a tabloid newspaper to which you attribute a certainty factor of .01. If you combine certainties using EMYCIN's combination rule, how many more copies of the newspaper would you need to see before you were .95 certain Elvis is alive?

Hilarious!

And the FUD just keeps on coming...

I've been following James' posts from the European Business Rules Conference this week. Very interesting, if you're into that kind of stuff.

I was a bit surpised to learn that some Business Rule Engine vendor actually stood up saying that Rete, and Rete-based rule engines, are suitable for only 10% of all problems. I don't know what vendor it is but the logic is very similar to that found in a paper I just read (yes, apparently Rete becomes less and less significant, dropping from 20% to 10% in about a year ;-)

Rete or Not?

This is probably old stuff to most people but I only found InRule yesterday when I was checking to see if my del.icio.us subscriptions had anything interesting for me to read about. Anyway, on InRule's web site they have a paper titled Rete or Not?

The paper is an attempt to convince us that InRule's engine is better than Rete-based engines. AFAICT the reason is because InRule's engine can handle multiple modes for rule execution. But the paper is mostly about why Rete's no good anyway. Among other things, it says, "...users must understand how a Rete engine works before effectively writing rules" and, my favourite statement, "Roughly 20% of business applications have a need for Rete".

There are quite a few things in the paper that conflicts with my view of how the Rete Algorithm works and in general how a Rete-based rule engine works and what can and cannot be done with one. For example, the description of partial "left" and "right" matches doesn't make any sense.

To me, the Rete Algorithm is a solution to the many patterns/many facts matching problem. It's not the only solution and it might not even be the best solution but the claims they make in the paper are just too much.

I find it hard to take it seriously since they don't say which engine they're comparing against, come to think of it, they don't even say how the InRule engine works. Apart from saying that they have an execution mode that is similar to Rete and some other modes which work sequentially there's NO information about what's going on.

If they really want to convince people they have a better engine; why not run some benchmarks?

[2007-06-25] Update: Well, apparently: "InRule will benchmark using your performance needs, with real-life application and capacity scenarios. We recognize that every client environment is unique, and do not believe in making idle claims based on questionable proprietary benchmarks. We will demonstrate and substantiate actual performance metrics."

What about questionable (all benchmarks are) non-proprietary ones? It seems they don't do those either. What the **** does benchmark using your performance needs mean anyway? And, just so you know. I'm not kidding or making this up or anything! That's what they say on their web site. Right here (under Performance).

I'm adding the label humour to these posts. This is too much. It's gotta be a joke.

Prolog! WTF?

Hm, I sort of figured I wouldn't be Java. But Prolog? Really!?


Which Programming Language are You?

Six-word stories repeated ... again

I found this when I was trying to clear my head after a rather long debug session with the RuleCompiler. It's inspired by a short Wired article about six-word stories. The idea is to describe a programming language using only six words.

I especially like:

Smalltalk: All your concepts belong to us.
Lisp: (no ‘they all belong to (us))

Back to looking for that bug...

Working Daze