4 ms·

I saw, as I saw your upthread quote from the paper above but I think you misunderstand it. The previous paragraph gives context to your quote: The main concl

I saw, as I saw your upthread quote from the paper above but I think you misunderstand it. The previous paragraph gives context to your quote: The main conclusion [5] was that declarative language programs for POTS were a lot shorter and easier to understand than imperative language programs. Un- fortunately the declarative languages lacked features for concurrency control and had poor error handling facilities. We concluded that we would like something like Pro- log with added facilities for concurrency and improved error handling. No such language existed at the time. "Something like Prolog" here reefers to the declarative features found in Prolog as well as other declarative languages, left unnamed in the quote, which make programs "a lot shorter and easier to understand thatn imperative language programs". But that's where the "commonalities" you mention in your OP, between Prolog and Erlang, end. Similarly, CSS and XML are declarative but that's where their "commonalities" with Prolog (and Erlang) end. I'm insisting with this because I'm concerned that your comment promulgates a common misconception about the, like you say, "commonalities" between Prolog and Erlang. These end with syntactic similarities and misunderstanding this can cause some disappointment to people trying to go from one to the other. I've seen a similar misunderstanding arise about "commonalities" between Prolog and, e.g. Haskell - they both have weird, arcane syntax and immutable data structures, but that's all. Or, think of C and javascript: both Algol like syntax and in fact the first js compilres must have been written in C, but that's all. etc. There is much, much more to Prolog than the declarative syntax.

rramadass 2y ago
First, my other comments for reference; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41013798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41013798 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41015406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41015406 I had explicitly stated above that "he conceived Erlang as Prolog-Ideas+Functional/Procedural+Concurrency+Fault-Tolerance." Here i am not making an equivalence between Prolog and Erlang but emphasizing the inspiration that Prolog provided for the design of Erlang (that is what is to be understood from all the links to the papers and comparison charts given in earlier comments). That inspiration is in the syntax of pattern matching, Atoms/Variables, Module/Export directives etc. Similarity of Syntax is very important for learning/understanding new languages since your cognitive load is decreased dramatically. A good example is C++ to Java/C# where the similarity in syntax (though the runtime object model is very different) is what was crucial to the widespread adoption of the latter. It is in this sense that Prolog to Erlang comparisons should be understood. Your arguments of grouping/comparing widely dissimilar languages are somewhat disingenuous. A much better side-by-side comparison of languages is https://hyperpolyglot.org/ https://hyperpolyglot.org/ where the author has tried to group by intended functionality and historical development. I think this is a good way to do it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
  >> It is in this sense that Prolog to Erlang comparisons should be understood. What I'm saying is that this is the entirely wrong thing to focus on, i.e. syntactic similarities. Prolog is a language of the logic programming paradigm, one of the first ones. Its syntax is that of (a restriction of) the first order predicate calculus. Its programs are First Order Logic theorems. Its interpreter is an automated theorem prover. The motivation for Prolog is the ability to program a computer using the syntax and semantics of First Order Logic, to be able to prove the truth values of statements in a formal language automatically, with a computer. It has nothing to do with Erlang, a functional programming language designed to program telephony switches. Any similarity is superficial: Erlang expressions are not definite clauses; everything in a Prolog program is a definite clause, modulo punctuation. Knowing Erlang will not help you learn Prolog just because the syntax looks similar. You can forget about that right now- that's the misconception I'm trying to correct. Don't encourage people to try to understand Prolog that way because you will only cause them pain. Take the site you link to as an example. It tries to bodge together Prolog with Erlang and Elixir in a "side-by-side reference sheet" that includes rows for "assignment" and "parallel assignment" using =/2. That's the unification predicate! Prolog does not have assignment! Just imagine the suffering of a novice programmer trying to use their knowledge of assignment, in Erlang or any language, to understand the following: ?- X = a, X = b. false. That's just setting up programming students to fail, to fail to understand, to fail to learn- and to only succeed in blaming Prolog for being a stupid, painful language that is hard to learn. Of course it's hard to learn! If you go around telling people that they can learn it more easily if they know Erlang! >> Your arguments of grouping/comparing widely dissimilar languages are somewhat disingenuous. No, the point is that they are widely dissimilar and that you won't understand that if you just stop at the syntax. Like the site you link to, where someone clearly made an effort to memorise syntax but completely failed to understand semantics. Semantics shmantics! The attitude I see here is the one that Peter Norvig criticises in "Teach yourself programming in 10 years": try to find a shortcut around the hard stuff so you don't have to use the brain. You don't learn anything that way.

rramadass 2y ago

First, my other comments for reference; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41013798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41013798 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41015406 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41015406 I had explicitly stated above that "he conceived Erlang as Prolog-Ideas+Functional/Procedural+Concurrency+Fault-Tolerance." Here i am not making an equivalence between Prolog and Erlang but emphasizing the inspiration that Prolog provided for the design of Erlang (that is what is to be understood from all the links to the papers and comparison charts given in earlier comments). That inspiration is in the syntax of pattern matching, Atoms/Variables, Module/Export directives etc. Similarity of Syntax is very important for learning/understanding new languages since your cognitive load is decreased dramatically. A good example is C++ to Java/C# where the similarity in syntax (though the runtime object model is very different) is what was crucial to the widespread adoption of the latter. It is in this sense that Prolog to Erlang comparisons should be understood. Your arguments of grouping/comparing widely dissimilar languages are somewhat disingenuous. A much better side-by-side comparison of languages is https://hyperpolyglot.org/ https://hyperpolyglot.org/ where the author has tried to group by intended functionality and historical development. I think this is a good way to do it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
>> It is in this sense that Prolog to Erlang comparisons should be understood. What I'm saying is that this is the entirely wrong thing to focus on, i.e. syntactic similarities. Prolog is a language of the logic programming paradigm, one of the first ones. Its syntax is that of (a restriction of) the first order predicate calculus. Its programs are First Order Logic theorems. Its interpreter is an automated theorem prover. The motivation for Prolog is the ability to program a computer using the syntax and semantics of First Order Logic, to be able to prove the truth values of statements in a formal language automatically, with a computer. It has nothing to do with Erlang, a functional programming language designed to program telephony switches. Any similarity is superficial: Erlang expressions are not definite clauses; everything in a Prolog program is a definite clause, modulo punctuation. Knowing Erlang will not help you learn Prolog just because the syntax looks similar. You can forget about that right now- that's the misconception I'm trying to correct. Don't encourage people to try to understand Prolog that way because you will only cause them pain. Take the site you link to as an example. It tries to bodge together Prolog with Erlang and Elixir in a "side-by-side reference sheet" that includes rows for "assignment" and "parallel assignment" using =/2. That's the unification predicate! Prolog does not have assignment! Just imagine the suffering of a novice programmer trying to use their knowledge of assignment, in Erlang or any language, to understand the following: ?- X = a, X = b. false. That's just setting up programming students to fail, to fail to understand, to fail to learn- and to only succeed in blaming Prolog for being a stupid, painful language that is hard to learn. Of course it's hard to learn! If you go around telling people that they can learn it more easily if they know Erlang! >> Your arguments of grouping/comparing widely dissimilar languages are somewhat disingenuous. No, the point is that they are widely dissimilar and that you won't understand that if you just stop at the syntax. Like the site you link to, where someone clearly made an effort to memorise syntax but completely failed to understand semantics. Semantics shmantics! The attitude I see here is the one that Peter Norvig criticises in "Teach yourself programming in 10 years": try to find a shortcut around the hard stuff so you don't have to use the brain. You don't learn anything that way.