Re: Mainstreaming Prolog a Pragmatic Approach?

From: Matthew Huntbach (mmh_at_dcs.qmw.ac.uk)
Date: 03/24/04 

Date: 24 Mar 2004 10:09:30 GMT

billh <sequitur@sonic.net> wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
 
>> The thesis of this thread is that Prolog *could* become a "mainstream"
>> language, and it's the fault of the Prolog community that it hasn't - all
>> that is required is for the right sort of textbook to be written, or for
>> people who teach Prolog to do it in a different way. I don't think this is
>> so, I think Prolog is a language whose limitations mean it will not achieve
>> any more widespread use than it has already.
>>
>> I'm not even sure that Prolog is a "splendidly useful" language. Even though
>> it's a language I've played with for a long time and am quite familiar
>> with, I find it difficult to think of any circumstances where it's the
>> language I would choose to use for any significant piece of programming.
>> Once again, when I say this I don't mean to condemn the whole of logic
>> programming, since I distinguish Prolog as just one example of the logic
>> programming paradigm - I'm not using "Prolog" tomean "any logic programming
>> language".
 
> You are playing games with the word "Prolog".

No, I don't think so. If we are going to talk about Prolog, hadn't we better
make sure we agree what we mean by the word? Sometimes the word has been
used rather sloppily to mean any logic programming language (which would
incorporte things like Mercury), but I've always been keen that it should
not be used in that way. The reason for this is that people who may have
been put off Prolog by its limitations may not realise that there are other
logic programming languages which overcome those limitations. My preference
is to use the word "Prolog" for that subset of logic programming with strict
left-to-right execution of goals, depth-first search with backtracking, and
no types.

> Is it the "thesis" of this thread "that Prolog *could* become a
> "mainstream" language, and it's the fault of the Prolog community that
> it hasn't"?
>
> No, this thread is asking the question: why hasn't Prolog met with
> widespread acceptance and what might be done to bring that about?

This discussion started off when someone made an accusation against the
Prolog community that we deliberately teach our language in a way that makes
it seem hard in order to prevent it becoming mainstream, in order that we
should remain some sort of exclusive clique. I thought this was a crazy
accusation - I am sure the last thing any enthusiast for a programming
language would want to do is stand in the way of it becoming mainstream, and
it is the dream of nearly every enthusiast of a programming language that it
will take off and become a standard language used in real-life applications
by large numbers of people. So, in a way, I'm defending the Prolog community
against what I thought was an unfair accusation.

> Your answer? Because everthing that could have been done to make
> Prolog acceptable was done, and done in the best of all possible ways,
> if Prolog has not been widely accepted then, since as part of this, the
> now "standard" ISO definition of Prolog is necessarily the best of all
> possible definitions of "Prolog", the fault cannot lie with the ISO
> definition of Prolog but, rather, must be inherent in the very concept
> "Prolog".

I don't think the fault lies with the ISO definition of Prolog, because the
ISO definition just cleans up the edges and subsidiary issues, the
essentials of Prolog - left-to-right depth-first search with unification
and backtracking - were around long before the ISO definition.

In the course of this conversation, the languages Perl, PHP and Python were
mentioned as languages which had become mainstream. Now these are languages
which have had nothing like the support that Prolog has had. Prolog is
taught in universities across the world, and has been for many years. A lot
of government money has been thrown into Prolog and other logic programming
languages - particularly when the Japanese government latched onto them for
use in its Fifth Generation project in the 1980s. Hundreds if not thousands
of academics have spent large amounts of time researching and developing
logic programming languages, there have been major academic conferences on
the subject. So why is it that Perl, PHP and Python, which spread with no
sort of official or academic backing or the prestige that Prolog has long
enjoyed amongst the academic community, have become mainstream, while Prolog
which has been around for decades longer hasn't?

> I do not accept your premise and I find your conclusion repugnant on
> its face.

This is just throwing abuse. I'm a logic programmer, have been since I was
an undergraduate taught Prolog by Bob Kowalski, have been employed on grants
to develop logic programming, have written a book on logic programming,
continue to research, write on and play with logic programming. It's a
matter of great concern to me that logic programming hasn't taken off. But I
think we need to be honest with ourselves when we ask why. Maybe it was
over-hyped and suffered a backlash. Maybe it isn't such a natural and easy
to use programming paradigm as we believed. Maybe there have been too many
competing research teams which have created the impression of confusion.
Maybe the dominance of one imperfect or problematical form of logic
programming has stifled the development of a better one.

What I do know is that if when someone asks these questions all he gets is
abuse thrown back at him, it will not help the promotion of logic
programming. It's something one often sees in life - a good idea or
something worthwhile is killed by kindness because its supporters won't
listen to criticism which is actually intended to be constructive and to
bring out and correct its weak points.

Matthew Huntbach

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mainstreaming Prolog a Pragmatic Approach?
    ... experience is that Prolog is an incredibly useful language for virtually all ... often than not end up using Prolog. ... I think you're right when you question whether logic programming really ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
  • Re: Mainstreaming Prolog a Pragmatic Approach?
    ... The main thing that Prolog has that other languages don't have is search ... backtracking is what you want. ... I mean a language that is small and demonstrates a principal, ... that hasn't been the case - why instead of the logic programming paradigm ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
  • Re: An even more basic question...
    ... What you seem to be asking for is a much richer logic programming language, ... relatively recent standardization of prolog, how come the prolog community, ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
  • Re: After Clocksin & Mellish?
    ... Handsome is as handsome does, and your insistance upon linguistic purity is a theologic debate and of no more empiric value than declarations that the pointy/round end of the egg is the "top". ... No-one is saying that the language called "Turbo-Prolog" is a worse language than what is conventionally known as "Prolog", ... use "Prolog" to mean that version of logic programming which is based on left-to-right depth-first search and is untyped. ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
  • comp.lang.prolog Frequently Asked Questions
    ... What is the Association for Logic Programming? ... I think language X is better than Prolog. ... Platforms: Window, Linux and Solaris ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)