4 ms·
Erlang was built in Prolog. Hence my analogy. It was not meant to -be- Prolog, and so doesn't support many of the things Prolog does, by intention.
by lostcolony 7y ago
Erlang was built in Prolog. Hence my analogy. It was not meant to -be- Prolog, and so doesn't support many of the things Prolog does, by intention.
- dllthomas 7y agoI mean it was originally a library or embedded DSL. A little different than mere choice of implementation language.
- dllthomas 7y agoAdding a little support, from Joe Armstrong's thesis (which I've been reading): "This version of Erlang was embedded in Prolog using Prolog infix operators and did not yet have its own syntax." "Since Erlang started as an extension to Prolog it seemed reasonable that [...]" "Erlang now had its own syntax (up to now it could be regarded as a dialect of Prolog) and could be regarded as a language in its own right, rather than as a dialect of Prolog."
- lostcolony 7y agoWell, yes. 'Originally' being a key word here. It started that way to be something else, and then continued evolving to be something else. Hence my question of what, exactly, the OP wanted backtracking -for-.