3 ms·
Yet whenever you see prolog or datalog reimplemented (see On Lisp, PAIP, AllegroGraph, Clojure Datalog implemetation, etc) the implementers have tended to appro
by sea6ear 14y ago
Yet whenever you see prolog or datalog reimplemented (see On Lisp, PAIP, AllegroGraph, Clojure Datalog implemetation, etc) the implementers have tended to appropriate Lispy syntax rather than the original Prolog syntax.
This might also just be laziness, or perhaps simply love for lisp syntax by people using lisp.
- martinced 14y ago"the implementers have tended to appropriate Lispy syntax" But doesn't it make sense that, once you're extending a Lisp dialect to add some Prolog implementation, you'll keep using the Lisp syntax? I don't see it a question of lazyness or love: one of the main point so many people accept to deal with Lisp's seemingly crazy parentheses is homoiconicity. It's not that parentheses are that great and that we love seeing: ))))))))) or )))]))]))) (in Clojure). It's that the benefit (homoiconicity) far outweight the cost of using that syntax.