Why Conniving is Better than Plannng
This paper is a critique of a computer programming language, Carl Hewitts PLANNER, a formalism designed especially to cope with the problems that Artificial Intelligence encounters. It is our contention that the backtrack control structure that is the backbone of PLANNER is particular, automa...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Language: | en_US |
| Published: |
2004
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/6200 |
| _version_ | 1811090594741616640 |
|---|---|
| author | Sussman, Gerald Jay McDermott, Drew Vincent |
| author_facet | Sussman, Gerald Jay McDermott, Drew Vincent |
| author_sort | Sussman, Gerald Jay |
| collection | MIT |
| description | This paper is a critique of a computer programming language, Carl Hewitts PLANNER, a formalism designed especially to cope with the problems that Artificial Intelligence encounters. It is our contention that the backtrack control structure that is the backbone of PLANNER is particular, automatic backtracking encourages inefficient algorithms, conceals what is happening from the user, and misleads him with primitives having powerful names whose power is only superficial. An alternative, a programming language called CONNIVER which avoids these problems, is presented from the point of view of this critique. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T14:48:41Z |
| id | mit-1721.1/6200 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| language | en_US |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T14:48:41Z |
| publishDate | 2004 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/62002019-04-12T08:29:29Z Why Conniving is Better than Plannng Sussman, Gerald Jay McDermott, Drew Vincent This paper is a critique of a computer programming language, Carl Hewitts PLANNER, a formalism designed especially to cope with the problems that Artificial Intelligence encounters. It is our contention that the backtrack control structure that is the backbone of PLANNER is particular, automatic backtracking encourages inefficient algorithms, conceals what is happening from the user, and misleads him with primitives having powerful names whose power is only superficial. An alternative, a programming language called CONNIVER which avoids these problems, is presented from the point of view of this critique. 2004-10-04T14:45:37Z 2004-10-04T14:45:37Z 1972-04-01 AIM-255a http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/6200 en_US AIM-255a 32 p. 12163426 bytes 901800 bytes application/postscript application/pdf application/postscript application/pdf |
| spellingShingle | Sussman, Gerald Jay McDermott, Drew Vincent Why Conniving is Better than Plannng |
| title | Why Conniving is Better than Plannng |
| title_full | Why Conniving is Better than Plannng |
| title_fullStr | Why Conniving is Better than Plannng |
| title_full_unstemmed | Why Conniving is Better than Plannng |
| title_short | Why Conniving is Better than Plannng |
| title_sort | why conniving is better than plannng |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/6200 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sussmangeraldjay whyconnivingisbetterthanplannng AT mcdermottdrewvincent whyconnivingisbetterthanplannng |