I saw this controversial statement in Wikipedia and thought I thought would requote it here. I would imagine there are people that would disagree with this statement on a number of levels. Feel free to add your thoughts to the comments, and I will re-paste them into this blog entry:
Does anyone know why nothing has been published on TMS’s in the last 15-ish years? Has some other concept replaced them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.15.62 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Assumption-based Truth Maintainance Systems were used in the early 90’s as well in the context of some European Projects (ESPRIT) to investigate the use of Expert Systems in Fault Diagnosis and Control. TMS and its variants were eventually dropped from research agendas for two basic reasons: (a) their complexity is inherently exponential, and no clever dependency-directed backtracking or any other short-cut can eliminate this explosion, so such systems are in practice useless; if one wants to work with incomplete information (as is always the case in the real world) one must accept the fact that their conclusions may contain internal contradictions. (b) a lesser reason for the fading out of such systems research may have to do with the fact that the computer programming languages used to develop such systems were mainly LISP (in the US) and PROLOG (in Europe). Both these languages are niche languages and there exist few researchers fluent in these languages today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.22.108 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
