User talk:TrainTracking1

Neats / Scruffies
I'm curious about your opposition to using the terms "scruffy" and "neat" to describe the feud between MIT and CMU+Stanford in the late 70s. What's your basic argument?

I agree with you if you think the term was nonsense -- in my memory the feud was more tribal than scientific and all the papers published about it were not worth reading (ditto the "procedural/declarative" dichotomy, which was basically the same thing). However, it's a convenient way to give a name to the two sides of the feud and it's "historical" in that it's what they called themselves at the time.

BTW, I didn't revert you, but I did have to correct the titles for accuracy. CharlesTGillingham (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

One more thing -- I updated the section. I noticed that all four of the most reliable sources we have on the history of AI mention neat/scruffy, as you can see in the reference: --- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)