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 heard a figure, but I would guess we were in the 20-50 KLOC range. The Prolog portion was solving an optimization problem. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that the code base was cloned onto around 20 different machines that were being fed by a 1-to-20 split of a stream of requests from the internet. At the back end was FFI access to a terabyte data store. Oh by the way, the operational goal was 30-second turn-around from the client end -- submit a request from a local office and have results 30 seconds later. . . . > Did you look at Mercury? I looked seriously at Mercury. It was rejected for two managerial/political reasons. The first was that it did not appear that Mercury could support the scale of the application, at least partially because it appeared at the time that development was not very active. The second reason was that the development group had only made the transition from assembly language to Prolog within the past year or so, and the prospect of pulling the group through another paradigm shift made all the managers turn pale. I sent some email to the Mercury site asking their opinion as to whether it was up to the challenge; the response was a candid "probably not". I still sometimes think it might have worked, but the risks would have been horrendous. -- Bill Wood _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
