Article View: comp.lang.prolog
Article #79Naive question on logic programming
From: Charles Lin
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 03:29
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 03:29
37 lines
1798 bytes
1798 bytes
I wonder if this is the right group to post to. If not,
send me e-mail.
I recently posted some stuff to the functional language
groups and asked questions about recent advances in that
area. To complete my query (pun intended), I want to ask
some questions here as well.
(1) Is logic programming better than functional programming?
I would guess that this is like comparing apples to
oranges, where functional languages are good for
one reason, and logic programming good for another.
This leads me to
(2) What is logic programming mainly used for? I.e., when
would I consider going to some language like Prolog
and when would I go to some language like ML or Haskell?
(3) Is logic programming declarative programming? The functional
folks say no, but I am not sure what the actual meaning
for decalrative programs are.
(4) What are the aims of those who research logic programming
langugaes vs. functional programming languages?
(5) Finally, are there any true logic programming languages?
I have head that Prolog isn't, though I am somewhat
unclear as to the reasons why.
Thanks in advance. Explanations can either be posted or
e-mailed.
--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Aug11.032901.14848@src.umd.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!disney.src.umd.edu!eng.umd.edu!clinShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!disney.src.umd.edu!eng.umd.edu!clin From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) Subject: Naive question on logic programming Message-ID: <1992Aug11.032901.14848@src.umd.edu> Sender: news@src.umd.edu (C-News) Reply-To: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles C. Lin) Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 03:29:01 GMT Lines: 39