2-APL UPC project.
+12
-11
+12
-11
docs/briscola_chiamata/bc-doc.tex
+12
-11
docs/briscola_chiamata/bc-doc.tex
···
265
265
266
266
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:concl}
267
267
268
-
- declarative way of programming its better to develop agents, you only have to care about "what" the agents have to do, and not "how" (conceptual division)
269
-
- problems if you aren't confortable with declarative languages but it's ok the price to pay
270
-
- the framework can be improved, adding more debug features (The platform is well done, but it's still a tool for research)
271
-
- in global overview, we can develop agents solutions fast
272
-
- we can connect with other JADE platform, and this is good
273
-
- bad parser of 2APL language, the syntactical error are not clear at all
274
-
- lib can be added (e.g. No security mechanisms)
275
-
- No documentation like a manual or of examples (only short example provided with the platform).
276
-
- Not all the constructs available are documented (e.g. random() or print())
277
-
- If an agent requires an action not related with changing its mental state, it has to be done through the environment. It would be nice to have agents in which part of its executing plan will consist of running some classification algorithm or some numerical method which is only owned by the agent and so it could be encapsulated in its program.
278
-
- Anybody can write its onw player agent with its own strategy!
268
+
The general feeling after implementing the briscola game into the 2APL system is both good and bad. I will start with the positive aspects.
269
+
270
+
Having a declarative programming when developing agents certainly gives the designer more freedom and a certain level of confidence that you would not have with other languages. You can focus specifically on 'what' you want your agents to do and not 'how'. This conceptual division is one of the main attractions of 2APL and even though some of us required to learn this type of programming in more depth as we had no previous experience in it, we certainly appreciated the benefit gained when we were in the implementation stage.
271
+
272
+
The JADE platform tools and some of 2APL tools were certainly helpful from beginning to end and provided us with information that would have otherwise been hard to see or find. Of course we can connect any of our agents to any other agent in the JADE platform and having portability is a helpful and important feature.
273
+
274
+
The negative aspects of 2APL are few, but certainly big. Firstly it is clearly a tool for research and not for real development. The documentation for 2APL has been ignored by its developers for far too long, it is simplistic , undetailed and the examples shown are ...one (which is not even fully explained!).The environment we built was done by scanning the code of some of the java classes of an example and thus we lacked the true ability to implement a full application (this was never our intention, but knowing that if you wanted it would be very difficult certainly isnt a positive aspect).
275
+
276
+
Even though prolog does give us a very powerful logic system, it does lack other tools such as databases, load data and other form of operation in which a prolog library would be required (and not allowed in 2APL).Finally, even though it was previously mentioned, the 2APL parser was so unhelpful that it barely provided us with any useful information. Clearer instructions or error messages would be necessary if any serious development was to be made in this language.
277
+
278
+
So even though we praised 2APL for some things and despised it for others, as a whole we were pleased to develop with 2APL and do believe that with more work it can become the "go to" language of multiagent systems... at least from a research point of view.
279
+
279
280
280
281
\section{Bibliography}
281
282
\nocite{*}