maner@bgsuvax.UUCP (09/11/87)
Could anyone compare MU-Prolog with Quintus (or CProlog) for me? I don't
need a diff on the respective feature lists. What I need is something
like "I've used X and Y and I prefer ___ because ___." Hidden motive:
We could stretch our budget to buy Quintus, but if MU-Prolog (or CProlog)
will be adequate for research and instruction, we could spend the dollars
elsewhere.
Walt
--
CSNet : maner@research1.bgsu.edu | CS Dept 419/372-2337
UUCP : {cbatt,cbosgd}!osu-cis!bgsuvax!maner | BGSU
Generic : maner%research1.bgsu.edu@relay.cs.net | Bowling Green, OH 43403
Opinion : If you are married, you deserve a MARRIAGE ENCOUNTER weekend!lee@mulga.oz (Lee Naish) (09/16/87)
In article <1285@bgsuvax.UUCP> maner@bgsuvax.UUCP (Walter Maner) writes: >Could anyone compare MU-Prolog with Quintus (or CProlog) for me? I don't >need a diff on the respective feature lists. What I need is something >like "I've used X and Y and I prefer ___ because ___." Hidden motive: >We could stretch our budget to buy Quintus, but if MU-Prolog (or CProlog) >will be adequate for research and instruction, we could spend the dollars >elsewhere. MU-Prolog is still being distributed by I recommend its successor, NU-Prolog, which is a compiler based system and has many more features. For most research I would recommend a compiler system. For teaching the descision is not so clear cut. If you have lots of students in relation to machine cycles/memory and the projects you are setting are small then an interpreter is probably desirable. To choose between different compiler/interpreter systems you should compare features and cost. The thrust of our work at Melbourne Uni on MU/NU-Prolog has been making the language closer to the ideals of logic programming and having a good database facility. Lee Naish
sundar@mipos3.UUCP (09/16/87)
In article <1285@bgsuvax.UUCP> maner@bgsuvax.UUCP (Walter Maner) writes: >Could anyone compare MU-Prolog with Quintus (or CProlog) for me? I don't >need a diff on the respective feature lists. What I need is something >like "I've used X and Y and I prefer ___ because ___." Hidden motive: >We could stretch our budget to buy Quintus, but if MU-Prolog (or CProlog) >will be adequate for research and instruction, we could spend the dollars >elsewhere. > I have used both Cprolog and Quintus extensively on the Apollo Domain systems. I find that Cprolog is adequate for routine PROLOG programming. Since the source code is available, you have a way to implement unusual features by adding extra code. Quintus has two advantages (it may have others, but I find these most useful): a compilation facility and a foreign function interface. Once your programs are stable, the run time can be increased by merely compiling them. The foreign function interface comes in handy when you have to use other languages for various reasons (example: building a graphical editor using a graphics library on your machine in C). Quintus also comes with an extensive on line help facility which I found helpful once in a while. I don't know the cost of Quintus but Cprolog is available for free if you are with an educational institution. sundar Sundar Iyengar Microprocessor Design UUCP: intelca!mipos3!sundar Intel, SC4-59 ARPA: sundar@mipos3.intel.com 2625, Walsh Avenue CSNET: sundar@mipos3.intel.com Santa Clara, CA 95051 AT&T: H: (415) 948-1885 O: (408) 496-2494
lee@mulga.oz (Lee Naish) (09/19/87)
In article <1026@mipos3.intel.com> sundar@mipos3.UUCP (Sundar R. Iyengar ~) writes: >In article <1285@bgsuvax.UUCP> maner@bgsuvax.UUCP (Walter Maner) writes: >>Could anyone compare MU-Prolog with Quintus (or CProlog) for me? I don't > >Quintus has two advantages (it may have others, but I find these >most useful): a compilation facility and a foreign function interface. MU-Prolog and (some versions of) CProlog also have foreign function interfaces (though not quite as easy to use). Lee Naish