Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-june
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!trow
From: trow@uw-june (Jay Trow)
Newsgroups: net.lang.st80
Subject: Re: OOLs in General
Message-ID: <1764@uw-june>
Date: Thu, 6-Sep-84 21:24:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-june.1764
Posted: Thu Sep  6 21:24:35 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Sep-84 01:23:49 EDT
References: <3017@utah-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 21

Forwarded from Smalltalk80Interest^@Xerox:

---------

From: deutsch@xerox.arpa
Date:  1-Sep-84 18:25:54 PDT
Subject: Re: OOLs in General

There is great difference of opinion in the AI community about the
relative value of procedure-, object-, logic-, and rule-oriented
paradigms for writing AI systems.  My reading is that each of these
has proved to be valuable, and "the best" or "the most natural" for some
subset of AI applications.  (Then again, there is great difference of
opinion about what is AI and what isn't, too.)  Part of the reason that
procedure- and logic-based programming are so popular is that it seems
to be easier to simulate the other two paradigms in terms of them than
vice versa, so if that's your starting point, you get to have the
largest number of paradigms at your easy disposal.

---------