4 ms·
I once asked my Prolog instructor why this all takes so long. His reply: "How well are you prepared for the next ISO meeting?" At that point, I realized that i
by triska 8y ago
I once asked my Prolog instructor why this all takes so long. His reply: "How well are you prepared for the next ISO meeting?"
At that point, I realized that if you prepare yourself in earnest for, say, the standardization process, or even to accomplish any concrete improvement in Prolog systems (such as better indexing, more advanced constraints, faster garbage collection etc.), then there is so much to do that there is barely enough time to do it properly!
Hence, I think it is fair to say we are are progressing as fast as we can, and such complex projects as building a full-fledged Prolog system inherently take an amount of time that we are not yet fully accustomed to. Prolog systems have been in development for many decades and are still being improved all the time. In my view, they are only now becoming truly interesting, with many great features such as multiple argument indexing, tabling and expressive constraints.
- anentropic 8y agoit sounds like ISO standardisation was a mistake?
- pjmlp 8y agoWhen I was at the university, the ISO was freshly baked, what mattered was SWI and SICStus compatibility. Pascal's issues regarding industrial use and poliferation of dialects were mostly fixed with ISO Extended Pascal, other than GNU, everyone else ignored it and focused on Turbo Pascal/Object Pascal compatibility instead. Ruby and Eiffel happen to have ISO standards, but I bet even developers on those communities don't know it. For a long time whatever ISO SQL was had not so much to do with what RDMS were actually providing. ISO only matters if it is something vendors actually care about.