                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out03a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news-xfer.nntp.sonic.net!posts.news.sonic.net!nnrp0.nntp.sonic.net!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 04:41:39 -0700
From: student <no-s...@nowhere.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070222 SeaMonkey/1.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Business Rules in Prolog
References: <1178437917.247473.164730@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <464112e3$0$27172$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <6h8243tsv84u244sj5ucsvllvk91gusa6f@4ax.com> <464195cf$0$14125$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <4641a108$0$321$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4641a108$0$321$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <4644566b$0$14140$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
Organization: Sonic.Net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 May 2007 11:41:31 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2ad76e72.news.sonic.net
X-Trace: DXC=7c\4nLLA3\d^^BdGDO_fahm4K\QM1CV^`1OYf0H`?;Xa;JTAP27NWPccnSlmYfATSm[mZ1=a<D0lbA0K:ghe7Rom
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net

Jan Wielemaker wrote:
> On 2007-05-09, student <no-s...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> A.L. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 17:16:51 -0700, student <no-s...@nowhere.net> w 
>>>>   I suggest you consider using Visual Prolog. To get a sense of what it 
>>>> might be like to develop your application in Visual Prolog, you might visit
>>>>
>>> I don't. If you want to use Prolog, then use Prolog.
>>>
>>> A.L.
>>    What do you mean by "Prolog" and why?
> 
> You know.  For those that don't, 

Visual Prolog is a logic programming
> language, but as it is just impossible to write a program that runs on
> Visual Prolog as well as on an ISO compatible Prolog compiler it can't
> be called Prolog.  An exact definition whether it is acceptable to say
> a system is a Prolog compiler is difficult to give, but naming Visual
> Prolog a Prolog system is about the same as naming a pascal compiler
> an implementation of the C language.
> 
> To make my position absolutely clear, I don't say Visual Prolog is a
> bad system.  I never used it.  It appears to me as a good, but
> proprietary logic programming language.  It should be named
> differently, so we don't see people trying to run Visual Prolog
> programs on a standard Prolog system and wondering why it doesn't
> work.  Very confusing!
> 
> 
> 	Cheers --- Jan

  Sorry for the late reply -- I've been focused on getting my computer
switched over to a new DSL internet provider this week.

  I agree with part of what you say about Visual Prolog.

  From my POV, the decision by PDC to concentrate on the Microsoft
Windows-style interrupt-oriented programming market --
which according to them is why they abandoned Linux altogether --
rather than keep the specification-oriented declarative Prolog
programming style and concentrate on building a Linux-based Prolog
programming market was a disaster because it chopped off the branch of
the tree I was sitting on at the time.

  What can I say? It's a great product if you're willing to plop down a
wad of cash for the privilege of having to wade chest-deep through 100
meters of object-oriented gobbledygook just to the reach the steep
cliffs of Windows interrupt-oriented predicates that you have to scale
before you can actually do any real Prolog programming.

  Once you get past the barriers, it's still Prolog programming,

  But Actor Prolog is another matter. According to the documentation,
any program written in "pure" Actor Prolog can be translated directly
into pure standard Prolog.

  Greetings,
  billh

-- 
"Identity of object I express by identity of sign, and not by using a
sign for identity. Difference of objects I express by difference of
signs." Ludwig Wittgenstein *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus* 5:53
