Because you can play very clever tricks with DFS to make it efficient, time
and space.
On 9/5/07, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:21:52PM +1000, Thomas Conway wrote:
but to interpret this as a *program* you have to consider how it will
be executed. In
On 9/2/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of standard exercices in Prolog is the construction of the
meta-interpreter of Prolog in Prolog. While this is cheating, I recommend
it to you. It opens eyes.
Ever tried implementing Haskell in Haskell? ;-)
In many respects, Haskell
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 13:21 +1000, Thomas Conway wrote:
On 9/2/07, Andrew Coppin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of standard exercices in Prolog is the construction of the
meta-interpreter of Prolog in Prolog. While this is cheating, I recommend
it to you. It opens eyes.
Ever tried
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:21:52PM +1000, Thomas Conway wrote:
but to interpret this as a *program* you have to consider how it will
be executed. In particular, using SLD resolution, conjunction (/\, or
',' in Prolog notation) is not commutative as it is in predicate
logic.
I've always
On 9/5/07, Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's because Prolog is -ugly-. The only reason I recommend it is
because it's archetypical and there aren't any other logic languages
with anywhere near the mindshare/significance. For a thing of sheer
beauty, see, e.g. LolliMon.
Oh, look,
On 9/5/07, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always wondered why Prolog uses DFS, instead of some complete
method like DFID or Eppstein's hybrid BFS... having to worry about
clause order seems so out of place.
Well, a couple of reasons are pretty well agreed in the Prolog community:
It's fairly correct and up-to-date although I note that the constraint
example 'send more money' given is stated as 'Prolog' when it really
uses ECLiPSe Prolog constraint syntax (alldifferent/1, labelling/1 and
'#' integer constraints):
If you're really interested in constraint based
G'day all.
Quoting Bill Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As to whether Prolog is dead or not, it depends on your definition of
dead. Three years ago (not ten!) I made my living maintaining and
developing a large application written in Prolog.
Back when I was doing logic programming, 10 or so years
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 07:46 +0100, Andrew Cheadle wrote:
. . .
Incidentally, we've often seen a lot of traffic on here about Sudoku
solvers and I've always wanted to post the ECLiPSe solution
(neat when you consider the length of the sudoku/2 predicate ;-) :
Reasonably quick, too -- 50
Hugh Perkins writes:
...
I didnt have a real PC, just a ZX Spectrum. It wasnt real Forth, just
Spectrum Forth. It was kindof fun, but a little disappointing not to
be able to do anything useful with it.
...
Oh, Forth on Sinclair was as decent Forth as any Forth. Indirect threaded
language,
Off off off topic: The Z80 DID make it! It was used in many many game
consoles (the best selling Nintendo Gameboy!) and arcade machines,
mostly as a secondary sound synthesiser or IO controller. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_Z80. Even when only counting the
Nintendo Gameboy, the CPU
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 02:49 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . .
I'm sure this isn't the case for you, but a typical Prolog programmer's
idea of large is very different from a typical COBOL programmer's.
Ever the diplomat? :-). Actually that is a fair observation. I don't
think I ever
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:46:17AM +0100, Andrew Cheadle wrote:
% ECLiPSe sample code - Sudoku problem
%
%This is a puzzle, originating from Japan
I'm not sure about it. See the History section on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku
Apparently Japan was the place where Sudoku started
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
Thanks, this is very useful information!
Prolog is indeed on my list as languages I want to learn. I understand
the basic principles, but haven't digged deep yet. But first I want to
do Haskell, which I'm now totally addicted to!
But after reading
On Sep 2, 2007, at 2:08 , Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
But after reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fifth_generation_computer, it seemed to me that Prolog was a dead
language, having only pure theoretical purposes. Is this true?
Tell that to the order pricing system I wrote in Prolog for a
On 9/2/07, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in the early 90s
I think I found the flaw in your argument ;-)
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
One of standard exercices in Prolog is the construction of the
meta-interpreter of Prolog in Prolog. While this is cheating, I recommend
it to you. It opens eyes.
Ever tried implementing Haskell in Haskell? ;-)
Prolog strategies are straightforward, and I simply cannot understand the
Cut is a means of preventing backtracking beyond that point - it
prunes the potential search space saying the answer must be built on
the current set of bindings. (Lots of work went into how automatically
get cut's into programs to make them efficient but without the
programmer having to worry
Andrew Coppin writes:
Ever tried implementing Haskell in Haskell? ;-)
Seriously:
Haskell is a *complicated* language, needing a parser, which by itself is
a non-trivial exercice. Moreover, it has a type-inference engine, which
may be simulated, sure, but Haskell in Haskell is a tough job.
As to whether Prolog is dead or not, it depends on your definition of
dead. Three years ago (not ten!) I made my living maintaining and
developing a large application written in Prolog. That was actually an
interesting experience, since one of the performance drivers was speed.
As a result code
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Coppin writes:
Ever tried implementing Haskell in Haskell? ;-)
Seriously:
Haskell is a *complicated* language, needing a parser, which by itself is
a non-trivial exercice.
It looks so simple on the surface...
[Actually, so does cold fusion.]
Read my whole
Sooo.. what is the modern equivalent of Prolog?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Hugh Perkins writes:
Sooo.. what is the modern equivalent of Prolog?
Well, first, I wouldn't agree entirely that Prolog is not modern.
Anyway...
If you want something wih more bells and whistles, modularity, coroutining,
more security (less power, e.g. no program auto-modification), etc.,
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote
Perhaps somebody can say more about constraint languages which replaced
Yes please! Of example, how correct is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_programming?
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 22:52 +0800, Hugh Perkins wrote:
Sooo.. what is the modern equivalent of Prolog?
Because no one has said it quite this way:
The modern equivalent of Prolog is Prolog.
Most of the advancement in logic programming has either been folded back
into Prolog or has been advanced
On 9/3/07, Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because no one has said it quite this way:
The modern equivalent of Prolog is Prolog.
Ok, thanks. Just wanted to check that.
(btw, just thought, when I was talking about FFI, probably meant
Forth, not Prolog. FFI for Prolog probably isnt that
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 07:43 +0800, Hugh Perkins wrote:
On 9/3/07, Derek Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because no one has said it quite this way:
The modern equivalent of Prolog is Prolog.
I was just about to say the same thing :-); thanks, Derek.
. . .
(btw, just thought, when I was
(BTW I thought the FFI for Forth was the Forth assembler; have things
changed since FIG/F83?)
I didnt have a real PC, just a ZX Spectrum. It wasnt real Forth, just
Spectrum Forth. It was kindof fun, but a little disappointing not to
be able to do anything useful with it. Well, I wanted to
Yes, I know, this is Haskell list. So, I apologize, but not too much...
Johan Grönqvist cites me:
Anyway, I believe strongly that ALL people who have problems...
should be encouraged to learn Prolog. IN DEPTH,
Do you have a recommendation on how to do this?
(e.g., books, web-pages,
Cool I had prolog for my Spectrum, many years ago (83?), but I
stopped using it when I realized it didnt have any input/output
capabilities beyond print, and no way to escape from the prolog
bubble, eg FFI (not sure what FFI stands for, but I think it is a
way for Haskell to escape into other
30 matches
Mail list logo
