Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- From: newser.bbs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 29 Apr 2006 19:39:47 -0700
Richard Hagen wrote:
It's obvious from your posts that you have no idea about Prolog. II am a Turbo Prologer .
I have been working with that for about fifteen years.
suspect that you know little or nothing about computing, and little orYes , I confess that besides Turbo Prolog, I know little about
nothing about programming languages. Please refrain from posting here
programming language other than Forth and Lisp.
Eg , I am not familiar with C/C++. I know almost nothing
about Java.
until you've bothered to read and understand something about whatYou mean the following text from the manual ?
you're posting about.
----
the variable E with the new size. For instance to allocate 8192 Kb to
the local stack under a Unix shell use:
LOCALSZ=8192; export LOCALS (under sh or bash)
setenv LOCALSZ 8192 (under csh or tcsh)
----
But my operating system is win98 ,.
Did you bother to read the GNU manual before making your ignorantI didn't read the SWI documentation , either .
recommendation? You certainly didn't bother looking at the SWI
documentation before posting here.
But the SWI prolog just can do well without needing manipulation .
For a person just to find a handy tool , which do you think he will
choose?
The answer is obvious.
Did you even bother to think about what might be going on in a program
execution -- in Prolog or any other language -- that has a recursive
depth of 1 000 000 000 calls?
OK , I explain that.
I prefer recursion to for-loop , because I can write program more
fluently
with it. But in almost all the language I have ever used, the
limitation is
quite severe . For TURBO Prolog , the limitation is around 1500 times .
Thus while I find that SWI prolog can do recursion almost limitlessly ,
I am
suprisingly happy .
But I don't think SWI prolog does real recusion , I think it just
gets a
mechanism for optimization to for-loop. Just looking at the number, one
billion,
you will know that. My computer just gets memory of hundreds of Megas.
How can it get Gigas of memory for recursive stack ? Impossible .
Thus the problem of GNU prolog is not stack size. It is the lack of
optimization
like SWI's. Do you think the manual can help this problem ? How ? I am
happy
to learn.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- From: Richard Hagen
- Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- References:
- GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- From: newser . bbs
- Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- From: newser . bbs
- Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- From: Richard Hagen
- GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- Prev by Date: Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- Next by Date: Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- Previous by thread: Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- Next by thread: Re: GNU prolog is not so reliable as SWI-prolog
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|