4 ms·

Every language should come with a Prolog interpreter. :) Well done, ichiban team!

para_parolu 5y ago
I never used prolog. In my mind it is some old unused language. What is good about it and why should it be embedded into other languages?
- convolvatron 5y ago
  rule-based programming is a slightly different take than procedural programming, and can be quite a bit more expressive and efficient to evaluate than procedural for the right kind of problems. 'make' is pretty good example, but 'package manager' might be more relevant to people. instead of having explicit control flow you have rules that say 'this is the case if these other things are the case', and they get triggered to evaluate implicitly (and recursively). variables and values in declarative languages are implicitly quantified to be sets of objects, so we say 'for all X where' .. instead of '_the_ X where', which makes it similar to SQL. actually there you go - pretend this is an embedded database - that's clearly useful, except with a better query language.
- Avshalom 5y ago
  My elevator pitch for Prolog is this: It's a constraint solving language, linear problem solving language, a database query language, a parsing language, and an expert systems language. All unified (sorry that's a pun) transparently in a single language suitable for general purpose programming instead of half a dozen partially interoperable DSLs.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  For the same reasons that LINQ is used in C# programs.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  A practical (but not fielded) use that I found with Prolog: programs are multi-use. That is, if you mentally model (and I think this is natural for new Prolog programmers) a program as running in one direction, you will be pleasantly surprised to find that you can use the same program to accomplish multiple effects. Using the built-in append/3 as an example: % find the list resulting from appending two lists append([1],[2],C). %% => C = [1,2] % find the prefix given a suffix append(A,[2],[1,2]). %% => A = [1] % find the suffix given a prefix append([1],B,[1,2]). %% => B = [2] % find all prefixes and suffixes append(A,B,[1,2]). A = [], B = [1,2]; A = [1], B = [2]; A = [1,2], B = []; false ;; no more results The first line is what most programmers new to Prolog will be used to, a function performs a computation in a forward fashion (here: given two knowns, calculate something). But all the others come along "for free" (if you write it correctly, which isn't too hard once you've learned a bit of the language and style). My practical use for this was with a (prototyped, not fielded) scenario generator. Using the rules (specification for the protocol) I could generate arbitrary scenarios. I could constrain them by filling in some variables, but leaving others blank. And I could take an existing scenario and determine if it was even valid. Using append again: append(A,[3],[1,2]). %% => false Now, in my situation instead of a hardcoded [1,2] I had a recording of an exchange between nodes, and I could use this to get an answer to why it didn't conform to the spec. One program that could be used in many different ways. The other reason to use Prolog, this was a much higher level of abstraction to work with than what we ended up using. It was much shorter, but less familiar to others. So we ended up with a C# + SQL solution where we had to write each variation of the program (generate, test for validity, identify problems).
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  Prolog, like Lisp, excels in problems where the best solution is to create a language in which to describe your problem, and then solve it by using some kind of inference engine. Unlike Lisp, it comes with an inference engine built-in, one that is as good as possible (formally speaking, it's sound and complete). So if that's the kind of use case you have your options are either: use Prolog; embed it; or implement an informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Prolog.
- slaymaker1907 5y ago
  Unification and constraint solving is a big reason why. Prolog is definitely the easiest language to write a type checker in because it not only has unification built in, it is also excellent at navigating trees like type hierarchies. Something I've personally used it for was navigating the parse tree of some T-SQL I was analyzing (it was 100k+ LoC so manual analysis was out of the question). There is a pretty good C# library for parsing T-SQL, but it is unwieldy to use since it relies on visitors and has tons of different typed nodes with a huge inheritance hierarchy. I ended up exporting this to JSON including type information and initially used jq for analysis. However, even that ended up being hard to manage so I switched to Prolog and it was way easier to write. In terms of this project, I particularly liked that the code was so dense and expressive that I could write the program by first testing things out in the REPL.
- zimbatm 5y ago
  Yet another explanation: we have imperative languages, functional languages, and declarative languages. Ordered by level of abstraction. Prolog fits in the latter category, together with SQL and LINQ.
- coredog64 5y ago
  At a large investment bank you’ve definitely heard of, the internal IAM implementation is written in Prolog. A PITA to get started with, but it was very powerful when used correctly.
yichiban 5y ago
Thank you! Our entire team of one is glad to hear that!
Zababa 5y ago
Some of them do, for type resolution. Rust has Chalk: https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk, Haskell has something that can be used too: https://aphyr.com/posts/342-typing-the-technical-interview https://aphyr.com/posts/342-typing-the-technical-interview.

I never used prolog. In my mind it is some old unused language. What is good about it and why should it be embedded into other languages?

convolvatron 5y ago
rule-based programming is a slightly different take than procedural programming, and can be quite a bit more expressive and efficient to evaluate than procedural for the right kind of problems. 'make' is pretty good example, but 'package manager' might be more relevant to people. instead of having explicit control flow you have rules that say 'this is the case if these other things are the case', and they get triggered to evaluate implicitly (and recursively). variables and values in declarative languages are implicitly quantified to be sets of objects, so we say 'for all X where' .. instead of '_the_ X where', which makes it similar to SQL. actually there you go - pretend this is an embedded database - that's clearly useful, except with a better query language.
Avshalom 5y ago
My elevator pitch for Prolog is this: It's a constraint solving language, linear problem solving language, a database query language, a parsing language, and an expert systems language. All unified (sorry that's a pun) transparently in a single language suitable for general purpose programming instead of half a dozen partially interoperable DSLs.
ModernMech 5y ago
For the same reasons that LINQ is used in C# programs.
Jtsummers 5y ago
A practical (but not fielded) use that I found with Prolog: programs are multi-use. That is, if you mentally model (and I think this is natural for new Prolog programmers) a program as running in one direction, you will be pleasantly surprised to find that you can use the same program to accomplish multiple effects. Using the built-in append/3 as an example: % find the list resulting from appending two lists append([1],[2],C). %% => C = [1,2] % find the prefix given a suffix append(A,[2],[1,2]). %% => A = [1] % find the suffix given a prefix append([1],B,[1,2]). %% => B = [2] % find all prefixes and suffixes append(A,B,[1,2]). A = [], B = [1,2]; A = [1], B = [2]; A = [1,2], B = []; false ;; no more results The first line is what most programmers new to Prolog will be used to, a function performs a computation in a forward fashion (here: given two knowns, calculate something). But all the others come along "for free" (if you write it correctly, which isn't too hard once you've learned a bit of the language and style). My practical use for this was with a (prototyped, not fielded) scenario generator. Using the rules (specification for the protocol) I could generate arbitrary scenarios. I could constrain them by filling in some variables, but leaving others blank. And I could take an existing scenario and determine if it was even valid. Using append again: append(A,[3],[1,2]). %% => false Now, in my situation instead of a hardcoded [1,2] I had a recording of an exchange between nodes, and I could use this to get an answer to why it didn't conform to the spec. One program that could be used in many different ways. The other reason to use Prolog, this was a much higher level of abstraction to work with than what we ended up using. It was much shorter, but less familiar to others. So we ended up with a C# + SQL solution where we had to write each variation of the program (generate, test for validity, identify problems).
YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
Prolog, like Lisp, excels in problems where the best solution is to create a language in which to describe your problem, and then solve it by using some kind of inference engine. Unlike Lisp, it comes with an inference engine built-in, one that is as good as possible (formally speaking, it's sound and complete). So if that's the kind of use case you have your options are either: use Prolog; embed it; or implement an informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Prolog.
slaymaker1907 5y ago
Unification and constraint solving is a big reason why. Prolog is definitely the easiest language to write a type checker in because it not only has unification built in, it is also excellent at navigating trees like type hierarchies. Something I've personally used it for was navigating the parse tree of some T-SQL I was analyzing (it was 100k+ LoC so manual analysis was out of the question). There is a pretty good C# library for parsing T-SQL, but it is unwieldy to use since it relies on visitors and has tons of different typed nodes with a huge inheritance hierarchy. I ended up exporting this to JSON including type information and initially used jq for analysis. However, even that ended up being hard to manage so I switched to Prolog and it was way easier to write. In terms of this project, I particularly liked that the code was so dense and expressive that I could write the program by first testing things out in the REPL.
zimbatm 5y ago
Yet another explanation: we have imperative languages, functional languages, and declarative languages. Ordered by level of abstraction. Prolog fits in the latter category, together with SQL and LINQ.
coredog64 5y ago
At a large investment bank you’ve definitely heard of, the internal IAM implementation is written in Prolog. A PITA to get started with, but it was very powerful when used correctly.

yichiban 5y ago

Thank you! Our entire team of one is glad to hear that!

Zababa 5y ago

Some of them do, for type resolution. Rust has Chalk: https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk, Haskell has something that can be used too: https://aphyr.com/posts/342-typing-the-technical-interview https://aphyr.com/posts/342-typing-the-technical-interview.