Re: JESS: Re: your mail

[James Owen]

As I recall, salience in rulebased programming is akin to goto statements in BASIC; a crutch for poor programing.  In several books on the subject (JIA ?) the comment usually is that while salience is sometimes necessary more than three levels of salience should have a really, really good reason.  Much like inheritance in OO programming.  That's my blurb for the month.  Going back to sleep now.  :-) SDG jco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Simon Harris wrote: Ahh. Quite right you are. I'm a fool! When JESS complained about "Logical CEs can't follow non-logical" what it really means is "Logical CEs can't follow non-logical" :-). I'll remember to read the messages more carefully next time. Comprehensible error messages aren't one of Jess's best features. So I guess the question becomes: is it more effecient to use salience? It could go either way, depending on the program. If you tend to have large conflict sets -- i.e., many rules activated at once -- then salience adds noticeably to the overhead of managing the agenda. If you have very small conflict sets, then salience is fairly cheap. (logical), on the other hand, is more of a constant overhead, independent of problem size. --------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Friedman-Hill Science and Engineering PSEs Phone: (925) 294-2154 Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234 PO Box 969, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Livermore, CA 94550 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov -------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]' in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]. --------------------------------------------------------------------