Article View: comp.lang.prolog
Article #3594Re: Is ICON higher level than Prolog?
From: Eric Raymond RIA
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1988 21:05
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1988 21:05
17 lines
1563 bytes
1563 bytes
In article <6797@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >I don't know how much the author knows about Icon, but Icon is like >Prolog in that an experienced programmer can get a lot more >performance out of the language by knowledge of the implementation. And you call this a high level language? Of course I know why you call it "high level". Don't flame about that. I know that optimization is always (usually) a tradeoff for clarity. Don't flame about that, either. What I'm complaining about is a language which depends upon knowledge of its internal implementation (as opposed to some abstract (intuitive) specification). This is further aggravated when this optimization is global in extent. A truly high level language would localize the optimization. (Easier said than done, but let's look ahead. Remember, "High Level" is a relative term.) Eric A. Raymond - NASA Ames Research Center - raymond@pluto.arc.nasa.gov
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<13919@ames.arc.nasa.gov>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!raymondReferences:
<6797@megaron.arizona.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!raymond From: raymond@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.arpa (Eric Raymond RIA) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Is ICON higher level than Prolog? Summary: You call this high level ?-) Message-ID: <13919@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Date: 26 Aug 88 21:05:03 GMT References: <6797@megaron.arizona.edu> Sender: usenet@ames.arc.nasa.gov Reply-To: raymond@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov.UUCP (Eric Raymond RIA) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. Lines: 16