Subject: Re: [lojban] Programming Languages for Lojban

From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:22:00 +0000 (UTC)

If one were to try to parse Lojban and use it for the internal workings of
an inference engine, would Lisp or Prolog be more appropriate?

Lisp is perceived as a more general purpose language than Prolog, so
it more closely matches Lojban, which is a completely general purpose
language.

Also, people have written interpreters for many different programming
languages in Lisp; I don't think as many have been written in Prolog.
So someone who is willing to stand on the shoulders of others will
have an easier time with Lisp.

Am I right in thinking that you plan to write most of your inference
engine in Lojban, and that you plan to use the Lisp or Prolog as just
a boot strap mechanism?

I am looking forward to your write ups about turning Lojban into a
humanly speakable programming language. What is involved in making
type checking optional? (The Lojban grammar makes it so, since you
have a choice of including or not including a restrictive clause,
i.e., one that tells you the type of the argument.) Under which
circumstances will people prefer to use an imperative format, in which
the computer is a robot that responds to orders, or prefer a format in
which the computer answers questions?

-- 
Robert J. Chassell [email-masked]
Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com