On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Keean Schupke <ke...@fry-it.com> wrote: > On 2 May 2015 06:43, "Matt Oliveri" <atma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Well I dunno. Maybe. I don't know all that much about typeclasses or >> logic programming. But you'd have a hard time getting me to write >> anything serious in Prolog. And I rather doubt that this is what the >> guy in the video had in mind. > > Prolog-like logic languages are great. Just look at how small the type > inference algorithms I was showing are in logic, and how easy to read.
> They deal directly with tree-like structures, Yeah, that must've been cool back before I was born. But it's essentially inductive trees, which are basically in every typed functional language I know of. > I often think Prolog is to trees what lisp is to lists. Well it's standard in Lisps to work with trees as nested lists. To get technical, Prolog is to uninterpreted function symbols what Lisp is to pairs. > I am seriously considering writing the bootstrap > compiler for my project in Prolog as a nanopass framework. I think this > would be even better/easier for compilers than scheme due to the close match > between pattern matching and clause resolution that allows you to directly > write tree rewrite rules. Racket has pattern matching defined as a macro. Maybe other Schemes have it too. I'd miss both pattern matching and first class functions, but I'd miss first class functions more. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
