[net.lang.prolog] Would the Real Prolog Please Stand Up?

rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (05/06/86)

Somehow, we managed to get a version of prolog and lost the sources
and documentation.  In my excitement to learn about this new beastie,
I ran out an got a book on it, Micro-prolog.  Guess what, it isn't
the same language.  So dig out a few examples from the Byte magazine
article, and the beast decides it doesn't like "/* */"  comments,
and burps on the second definition of "traverse".

Finally, I found a nice article in Computer Language (Jul 1985) that
explains some of the different dialects.  After a little more
reading, it looks like this follows prolog-86 style, but then again
maybe not...

Needless to say, I am a little confused.  I got some of the
articles posted on this net, but still seem to have trouble
getting things to work.

Could someone describe which standards are available, what might
be available in public domain (we have a possible need for an
advanced version if the cost can be proven justifiable).  Has
something been posted to net.sources?

Is prolog-86 a new standard?  Is it yet another propriatary
version?  Is Clocksin and Mellish still THE BOOK to read?

Are Definitive Clause Grammers a standard part of the language?
Has anybody written a compiler (of any type) using DCG?

Has anyone come up with some substantial applications?
I'm looking at it as an analysis tool to determine side effects
of about 4000 subroutines, would this blow prolog out of the
water?

By the way, from the little exposure I have gotten, I LOVE the
language, especially the interactive environment.

Has anybody had a chance to evaluate Turbo-Prolog?
Will it be coming out for the Mac, ST, or Amiga?