🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GARYM.90Oct14143102@cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net>, garym@cognos.uucp@uunet.uu.net (Gary Murphy) writes:
    > This project business has been with this prolog since the beginning.
    > One one hand, it is commendable, as it does allow their WAM'ish
    > compiler to easily attach to C language .LIB's and .OBJ's (unlike
    > Arity et al where the interface is much more awkward), and it was one
    > of the first prologs to address the 'flatness' of prolog predicate
    > scope.

(a) It is news to me that PDC Prolog is "WAMish".
    (It's the little things, like the tip in the manual that a trail size
    of 0 is fine for most programs...)
(b) Project files have nothing to do with attaching to C stuff; other
    Prologs manage splendidly without.  (PopLog, QP, ZYX, ALS, ...)
    What matters is the types and the "- language X" specification.
(c) It is news to me that PDC Prolog was "one of the first Prologs to
    address the 'flatness' of Prolog predicate scope".  M-Prolog was
    around for a long time before PDC Prolog; that's a serious commercial
    Prolog system.  I've never been sure whether "M" stood for "Modular"
    or "Magyar" or what, either would be appropriate.  PopLog inherited
    sections from Pop.  LM Prolog inherited packages from Lisp.  Prolog-X
    had modules.  All of these were release quite a bit before PDC Prolog.

> Like everyone else, I don't like the 'project' declaration,
> but I really can't see any way they could have avoided it.

Hmm.  Many modern commercial Prolog systems provide some kind of modules,
simple interfacing to C and other languages, and separate compilation to
"binary" files, all without any need for "project" files.  Lisp provides
packages and separate compilation to "fasl" files without any need for
"project" files.

-- 
Fear most of all to be in error.	-- Kierkegaard, quoting Socrates.