🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct27.085556.14155@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> bimandre@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Andre Marien) writes:

   Thomas M. Breuel writes:

   > ...
   > and Prolog may be well suited to writing "meta-interpretors" (sic), 
   > ...
   > The advantages each of these languages have for each of these domains
   > lies in the standard data types, libraries, and programming
   > environment available for them. As languages, however, they are not
   > very "expressive", lacking variously important features like closures,
   > continuations, static type systems, and module systems.
   > ...

   I could not resist when I saw the quote about Prolog.
   If even people with your background (Institut Dalle Molle d'Intelligence
   Artificielle Perceptive) think Prolog MAY be suited for meta-interpretors
   (ONLY seems implied), something is quite wrong.

I was only quoting someone else (hence the "may be", with the
"according to the source that I quoted" implied). My article contained
no judgement of Prolog either way. Pick your fight with him, not me.

					Thomas.

PS: I personally stopped using Prolog about 5 years ago, in favor of
Lisp and SML, which I have found to be more suitable for my
applications.