🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1285@bgsuvax.UUCP> maner@bgsuvax.UUCP (Walter Maner) writes:
>Could anyone compare MU-Prolog with Quintus (or CProlog) for me?  I don't
>need a diff on the respective feature lists.  What I need is something
>like "I've used X and Y and I prefer ___ because ___."  Hidden motive:
>We could stretch our budget to buy Quintus, but if MU-Prolog (or CProlog)
>will be adequate for research and instruction, we could spend the dollars
>elsewhere.
>
I have used both Cprolog and Quintus extensively on the Apollo Domain
systems.  I find that Cprolog is adequate for routine PROLOG programming.
Since the source code is available,  you have a way to implement unusual
features by adding extra code.

Quintus has two advantages (it may have others, but I find these
most useful): a compilation facility and a foreign function interface.
Once your programs are stable, the run time can be increased by merely
compiling them.  The foreign function interface comes in handy when
you have to use other languages for various reasons (example:
building a graphical editor using a graphics library on your
machine in C).  Quintus also comes with an extensive on line help
facility which I found helpful once in a while.

I don't know the cost of Quintus but Cprolog is available for free
if you are with an educational institution. 

sundar
Sundar Iyengar                      Microprocessor Design

UUCP:  intelca!mipos3!sundar        Intel, SC4-59
ARPA:  sundar@mipos3.intel.com      2625, Walsh Avenue
CSNET: sundar@mipos3.intel.com      Santa Clara, CA 95051
AT&T:  H: (415) 948-1885            O: (408) 496-2494