Thread View: comp.lang.misc
2 messages
2 total messages
Started by Andre Marien
Tue, 27 Oct 1992 08:55
Re: Comparing Power (Expressivity) of Two Languages
Author: Andre Marien
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 08:55
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 08:55
45 lines
2572 bytes
2572 bytes
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. Meta-interpreters is the best way to let Prolog look bad. Source-to-source transformations are made real easy for the same reasons meta-interpreters are easy, but are much more valuable: it is very easy to write pre-compilers etc. in Prolog. When you quote the lacking features, you are missing something too. All commercial systems have had module systems since long. You might have tried an old PD version (C-Prolog ?). As for continuations, you will be able to find a complete implementation of Prolog based on continuations, and other papers about continuations and Prolog. The lack of type systems is often referred to as the advantage of dynamic typing. A lot of effort goes into type checking and type derivation for performance and correctness reasons too. Your best argument in favor of Prolog is the quote: > ... > The > quickest, cheapest, and most practical way to get a programming job > done is usually not by writing the shortest program, but by writing > clear, unsurprising, reusable, and debuggable code. > ... In IMHO, far to many people criticise languages and start rolling their own-is-better (TM :-) language before having gone to the limit to really find out about what exists. Andre' Marien bimandre@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Re: Comparing Power (Expressivity) of Two Languages
Author: Thomas M. Breuel
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 04:30
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 04:30
28 lines
1800 bytes
1800 bytes
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.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads