> This is an extreme position, but the planning and re-planning people were having trouble coping with the real world.
Yes. The whole field wasted decades running afoul of Ron's First Law: all extreme positions are wrong. This is why the three-layer architecture described in the link above (reactive behaviors sequenced by a state machine informed by a deliberative planner) eventually became the de facto standard, because it combines both approaches in a way that actually fits the structure of the problem.
I presume you mean Latombe? http://ai.stanford.edu/~latombe/
> This is an extreme position, but the planning and re-planning people were having trouble coping with the real world.
Yes. The whole field wasted decades running afoul of Ron's First Law: all extreme positions are wrong. This is why the three-layer architecture described in the link above (reactive behaviors sequenced by a state machine informed by a deliberative planner) eventually became the de facto standard, because it combines both approaches in a way that actually fits the structure of the problem.