I don't disagree with your stance but one of the most beautiful things to come from this line of work was Ehud Shapiro's declarative debugging [1]. I'd recommen

I don't disagree with your stance but one of the most beautiful things to come from this line of work was Ehud Shapiro's declarative debugging [1]. I'd recommend taking a look at his PhD thesis if you're at all interested in what logic programming can do (that nothing else can [2]). You can also see it as a philosophical exercise: he shows how we might understand Popper's falsification criterion and use it to do science. [1] Tech report: https://cpsc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/tr237.pdf https://cpsc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/tr237.pdf [2] There have been attempts to build declarative debuggers for other languages but for one reason or another (complexity, space use, incomplete coverage of the language, ...) they don't appear to get used very widely. Shapiro's setup is beautifully simple for what it does. Here "declarative" means that you have a model in mind ("model" in the sense of logic, i.e., you expect your predicates to hold of particular arguments) and the tool helps you explore the divergence between what you wrote and what you intended. Thinking this way means you can completely ignore the details of SLD-NF resolution (the details of the Prolog implementation)... I mean, it's unlikely to be perfect in practice for any number of reasons, but I find it very disappointing that we don't dream like this any more.