Re: why not use LISP-imp of Prolog as opposed to Prolog itself?
- From: bart demoen <bmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 22:03:11 +0200
On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:51:14 -0700, globalrev wrote:
is there an actual reason to use swi-prolog or the like as opposed to
just use an implementation of Prolog in Lisp?
Yes there is: Lisp can be (and was) implemented in Prolog (search for
Lisprolog in Google for one example). The point is: you never really want
Lisp; what you want is Prolog. So why not go for the real thing instead of
the embedded interpreter ?
it seems Prolog is a special-purpose language and the
No, Prolog is general purpose.
turingcompleteness is fairly pointless
No it isn't, it is essential in almost anything one wants to program.
and just there for the cause of
being turingcomplete.
BTW, Lisp is Turing Complete - otherwise it would not be possible to write
a Prolog in Lisp.
and thus better to have a real general-purpose language with prolog
Prolog is a real general purpose language.
implemented in that language so you can easily write your application
You can easily write your application in Prolog.
and then dont have to run code between 2 different languages.
And that wouldn't even be a bad thing, so why worry about it.
or how big of a fool am i?
I pass on this one.
Cheers
Bart Demoen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why not use LISP-imp of Prolog as opposed to Prolog itself?
- From: Duncan Patton
- Re: why not use LISP-imp of Prolog as opposed to Prolog itself?
- References:
- why not use LISP-imp of Prolog as opposed to Prolog itself?
- From: globalrev
- why not use LISP-imp of Prolog as opposed to Prolog itself?
- Prev by Date: Re: Discriminating facts from rules
- Next by Date: Re: why not use LISP-imp of Prolog as opposed to Prolog itself?
- Previous by thread: Re: why not use LISP-imp of Prolog as opposed to Prolog itself?
- Next by thread: Re: why not use LISP-imp of Prolog as opposed to Prolog itself?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
