Subject: From: AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws <AIList-REQUEST%sri-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 85 05:33:55 edt

Received: from sri-ai.arpa by CSNET-RELAY.ARPA id a000736; 14 Oct 85 0:47 EDT
Date: Sun 13 Oct 1985 20:43-PDT
Reply-to: AIList%sri-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY
US-Mail: SRI Int., 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA  94025
Phone: (415) 859-6467
Subject: AIList Digest   V3 #143
To: AIList%sri-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY
Received: from rand-relay by vpi; Mon, 14 Oct 85 05:17 EST

AIList Digest            Monday, 14 Oct 1985      Volume 3 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:
  Queries - Autonomous Vehicles & YAPS & Prolog vs. OPS5 & ES Tools &
    Franz Lisp Behavior,
  Bindings - Symbolics Lisp Machine Mailing List,
  Corrections - Verification Peer Review & TIMM Expert System,
  AI Tools - Workstations

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: C. Ian Connolly <Connolly@GE-CRD>
Subject: Autonomous Vehicles

Apropos a recent AILIST entry:  Does anyone have more information
on the DARPA Autonomous Vehicle demo that Waxman, et al (I think -
correct me if I'm wrong) gave earlier this year?
I'd *love* a review, if anyone was there that can send one out on
this list.  What speeds were it capable of, what methods were used,
etc...?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 85 18:30:49 EDT
From: "Srinivasan Krishnamurthy" <[email-masked]>
Subject: YAPS - Commercial Version Info.

Dear Folks!
 Does anybody have information on the Commericial Availability
of a Production System called "YAPS"? This was developed at the
University of Maryland and funded by the Goddard Space Flight
Center. I can't seem to find the right people to talk to at
Maryland, regarding this system. Any leads will be greatly
appreciated...

   Thanks in Advance.
                                       .....Vasu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 85 10:02:58 PDT (Thursday)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Prolog vs. OPS5

Can anyone provide me with a compare-and-constrast discussion of Prolog
vs. OPS5.  To use an analogy from this list, are they both screwdrivers
or both chisels ?

Jan

------------------------------

Date: Thu 10 Oct 85 08:53:24-PDT
From: Mark Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: es tools query

My list of major commercial AI software tools includes:
(1) S.1., (2) KEE, (3) ART, and (4) Knowledge Craft

There is also DUCK which seems to be more like an enhanced logic
programming language than the kind of tools (1)-(4) represent.

There is TIMM which was blasted on this list recently.

One other candidate appears to be KES or KES2.  Do you have any comments
on this system?  Is it a strong competitor to the other major tools?

mark

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 1985 14:37-CST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: franz lisp ?

The following demonstrates that enabling the trace facility causes
return values from lisp functions consisting of prog bodies to be set to
nil.  Is this supposed to happen and what does one do about it?

% cat blah1.l
(defun Blah (x y z a)
(prog (v)
(setq y (add 3 5))
(return 1)
))
% lisp
Franz Lisp, Opus 38.79
-> (load "blah1.l")
[load blah1.l]
t
-> (setq A (Blah 3 5 7 9))
1
-> (step e)
[autoload /usr/lib/lisp/step]
[load /usr/lib/lisp/step.l]
t
-> (setq B (Blah 3 5 7 9))
(setq B (Blah 3 5 7 9))
  (Blah 3 5 7 9)
    3
    5
    7
    9
    (prog (v) (setq y (add 3 5)) (return 1))
      (setq y (add 3 5))
        (add 3 5)
          3
          5
        8
      8
      (return 1)
        1
    nil
  nil
nil
->

------------------------------

Date: Fri 11 Oct 85 12:43:55-PDT
From: Richard Acuff <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Symbolics lisp machine mailing list ??

         [Forwarded from the Stanford bboard by Laws@SRI-AI.]

   The Symbolics Lisp Users' Group has a mailing list [email-masked].
This can be read from the BBoard SYMBOLICS-LISP-USERS on Sumex.  Send
mail to [email-masked] to get on the list.

   There is also BUG-LISPM@MIT-MC which may be of some interest (also a
BBoard on Sumex), as well as {Bug,Info}-TI-Explorer@Sumex for TI Explorers.
Again, use the -Request convention for getting added.

        -- Rich

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 21:38:01 PDT
From: Dick Kemmerer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Peer Review

        A colleague forwarded a copy of AIList Digest #133 to me. In this
issue Michael Melliar-Smith's response to John Nagle's SIFT verification
message contains a reference to a verification study that is being
sponsored by the DoD Computer Security Center. I am the PI for this
study and would like to comment that the reference is somewhat
misleading. In particular, the study group did not look at the SIFT work.
Also, the suite of tools that we reviewed were the enhanced HDM tools (most of
which have been developed since the SIFT work).

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 12:22:01 edt
From: [email-masked] (GERARD MAYER)
Subject: TIMM Correction

I'd like to point out the only error I found in Touretzky's article about TIMM.
According to the General Research technical and sales people at the IJCAI-85
booth TIMM CANNOT call any external functions: Fortran or otherwise. I found
this amazing and asked several of their people the same question. I have sent
a synopsis of my review of TIMM, KEE, ART, etc. to Cowan directly.

                                        Gerard Mayer
                                        Raytheon Research Division

                                        uucp  ..linus!raybed2!gxm

------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 85 11:01:17 PDT (Thu)
From: Jeff Peck <peck@sri-spam>
Subject: RE: do you REALLY need a AI machine?

  Funny how when you say a "lisp machine" some people just assume you
mean "Symbolics".  My experience has been that you can avoid most of
the problems John Cugini complained about by chosing an alternate
vendor.  For instance, with a $100K investment (equivalent to your
first 3600) you can buy 3 or 4 Xerox lisp machines.  So, now you can
put one in each programmers office (and not have to walk down the hall
to an occupied machine), no standing in line. The Xerox machines
network to VAX/VMS or Unix file servers, so sharing is easy.  The
Xerox user interface is so transparent that you can learn it in a day
or two (the editor in about 5 minutes).  And, although the Xerox may
be 1/3 the speed of a 3600, as John points out, "who cares" when you
are just building and exploring?  If you get into serious production
of large systems, then move it to a Symbolics, or a Cray.  If you are
doing Research on AI technology, you may also want the faster system,
but most industrial labs seem to be more into applications development.
(Also, the Xerox machines support (or soon will) both Quintus Prolog,
and CommonLisp, integrated with the InterLisp-D environment).
 As for a VAX <how fast does an editor need to be?> it's never fast
enough.  If all you do is editing, maybe; but where are the graphics?
And timesharing LISP is a serious development problem: "Is my program
stuck, or is someone else just compiling something?" For $250K, you
can do a lot better with personal workstations.
  This is not intended to be a plug for Xerox, and of course, these
are just my personal observations.

j. peck

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Oct 85 20:56:49 PDT
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings>
Subject: Big Lisp Machines

        We, as are you, are involved in applying AI to our jobs.  We
have 5 PC-AT's and a Symbolics (which we got from another organization).
The PC's are much more useful, and a VAX would be ideal.  The basic
reason is that PC-AT's and VAXEN are not that much slower than the big
machines, and cost less, and are compatible with alot more applications
programs and peripherals.  Most applications need a big data base to
work of, and the AI portion is relatively small.
        If you already have a great deal of LISP code already written,
and you already have VAXEN and ethernet, then a big machine might be OK.
My advice is to purchase AT's and micro-vax II's with your bucks, and
I sincerely doubt you will regret it.

        Jed Marti (ARPA: [email-masked] ATT:213 393-0411) published
a benchmark of many machines (including a Symbolics 3600, VAX 11/780, 750)
running REDUCE problems (a symbolics math package).  I think the 780 was
a tad faster than the 3600 and the 750 a tad slower (~10%).

        If you are working on the part of COMSAT which flies satellites,
I would like to find out what you are doing -- that's what we are using
AI (planning to use AI) for.

        Hope these comments help,

Richard Jennings,
Air Force Satellite Control Facility
Sunnyvale CA 95051
ATT: 408 744-6427
ARPA: jennings@aerospace

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Oct 85 16:38 EST
From: "Christopher A. Welty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: AI Workstations

        I don't intend to offend anyone, but after reading  John
Cugini's response to Srinivasan Krishnamurthy's query about AI machines
I was a little taken aback.
        The reason one gets an AI machine is because it is the most powerful
AI/ES development tool around.  It provides the developer with facilities
that make the entire system development process a hundred times easier
(this number may vary depending on what system you are coming from).
Of course you have to learn how to use it.  Some people look forward to
the chance to learn something new, others prefer to know only one or
two systems and hail them as the ultimate.  Those who prefer to learn
know that each different system has a use that makes it helpful for
certain applications, and a hinderance in others.
        If you really make an effort to learn how to use an AI workstation,
you will find (especially if you've had to do development on other systems)
that you will be far more productive, and you will be doing things more in
the way they should be done.  We all know that it is often easier to cheat
than to do things the right way, and often times cheating makes later
development more difficult.  With the extensive support environments for
AI/ES that these workstations provide, doing things the right way is made
easier (almost easier than cheating).
        From Mr. Cugini's statement, his objections to the workstations seemed
no more than laziness...and that seems no reason to dissuade others from
getting them.  If you are really getting into AI "in a really big way," an
AI workstation is a must.  You won't know what your missing if you never
get one, and if you do (and take the time to learn it) you won't know how
you did without it.

                                        -Christopher A. Welty
                                         RPI/CIE Systems Mgr

------------------------------

End of AIList Digest
********************