User talk:ParkerJones2007/Comparison of Prolog standards compliance

putbyte:13

Seems to have disappeared from results. Has it been dropped? ParkerJones2007 09:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that the aprolog which rates all green in all cases has no clear referent other than that in

http://www.inf.bme.hu/~pts/stdprolog/stdprolog_paper.pdf

and is a strikingly irrelevant exemplar. The absence of XSB can no longer be excused as it was by the authors. Given the number of Prolog implementations listed in Prolog we should withdraw this article until an adequate survey is presented.

Of particular interest to me are the prologs which attract non-academic attention, such as the coming YProlog and the implementations of prolog found embedded within other languages.

I strongly disagree with your comment. Firstly, it is easy to criticise saying they should have done more - this is a very helpful publication because 1) it provides an extensible ISO testing framework and 2) it tests most of the more common prolog implementations. If you wish to apply the tests to XSB or other prologs there is nothing stopping you from doing so and I'd be interested to hear what you find. Secondly, I believe aprolog does fail some tests, but the article needs to be corrected, see [1]. Please feel free to contribute! ParkerJones2007 10:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this as good as the page is going to get?

This article barely survived AFD, and most of the keep votes were pretty clear that it needs to be improved. Two months later, there's still no context for what any of the tables are referring to, and aren't the all-green ones (or all-red, if there are any) just a waste of space? Yes, there are lots of other articles comparing software, but most of them compare it on terms that can actually be understood, not whether they comply with "ops:13" or any of ten thousand other tiny little pieces of information that are totally incomprehensible to anyone unfamiliar with the topic. Propaniac 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the page's creator doesn't seem to have done anything on Wikipedia for over a month, if there's no response to this I'm planning to bring the article back to AFD. Propaniac 19:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and No. This comparision is very useful for people involved in Prolog and Logic Programming. But yes, this need not be in an encyclopedia; it is not of wide interest (maybe this changes in 5-10 years? Who knows...). Before deletion, please do you know of a better storage? I can verify from my experience that for instance Ciao Prolog is really very huge and good, but unfortunately lacks standard ISO comformance although it is documented as conforming. This is important for people who want to get a quick overview. The absence of XSB, a very modern and widely used Logic System is IMHO ok, because Prolog is only a small part of XSB. Who is interested in Logic programming can not miss it, e.g. it is referenced about a dozen times in Wikipedia alone.

Please be aware that we might see a revival of Prolog and Logic programming, because they allow for automatic formal verification and parallelization of programs, in contrast to procedural programming languages. Both are very hot topics in IT for the next two decades (2005-2030). Because of the 4GHz border, multi-core chips, Moore's law, we have a software crisis: hardware goes parallel and has built-in error detection and correction but software is serial, and full of bugs. Prolog is still very useful, at least for education; to teach principles. Beside that, nobody knows how many of the small cute agents/weblets running in the Java VM inside your browser are written in Prolog. I vote: dont delete. A few kB, c'mon. Sincerely, Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.189.171 (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason to delete is that this isn't an encyclopedia article. There is already an article on Prolog, and arguably Prolog standards compliance deserves one of its own. This aint it. If you want to "vote", make it an article and not just a bunch of tables. Captain Segfault (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What I found missing in both pages was an explicit reference to the ISO Prolog Standard by name or the INRIA Web site that discusses it,or the book Prolog: The Standard. I've added a reference to the book.

The reasons for the standard and what it has accomplished might be discussed in present tense and"aims to" seems dated for a 1995 standard. Notably, many versions of Prolog and certain applications and extensions including LogTalk, are compatible with ISO Prolog: 18 Jan 2009 (RDK) Richard Katz (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)