Newsgroups: comp.constraints
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!Frankfurt.Germany.EU.net!Munich.Germany.EU.net!ecrc!news
From: micha@ecrc.de (Micha Meier)
Subject: Re: Comparative study of CLP languages ?
Message-ID: <DKx4Iz.J5t@ecrc.de>
Sender: news@ecrc.de
Reply-To: micha@ecrc.de
Organization: European Computer-Industry Research Centre
References: <4ctbts$b43@luxor.mch.sni.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 14:35:23 GMT
Lines: 26

In article b43@luxor.mch.sni.de, ifprolog@pgtr0158.mch.sni.de (IFCO) writes:
> 	There were some earlier comparison studies performed on CLP
> languages, but much has changed since these studies. More recently
> IF/Prolog gained full constraint technology in a commercial Prolog
> system. It is fast, sexy and provides solvers for most of the quasi
> standard predicates.
...
> 	Back to your question, on comparison, we have found with a limited
> number of tests that IF/Prolog is 5-> times faster than Eclipse. But a 
> more systematic study is required and I have not compared it with Oz or
> CHIP (recent versions)

Dear IF/Prolog representative,
thank you very much for yet another description of your sexy Prolog :-)
As far as its CLP capabilities and comparisons with other systems
are concerned, I would like to have some more substance rather than just
enumerating its features and saying that on some tests it is x-times faster
than some other system. I understand that you have to sell it for your living,
but you must also understand that this is a scientific newsgroup.
All of us are certainly interested in fair comparisons of different systems, so you
may perhaps invest some time and provide one which goes more in depth
and can be repeated by others. As a matter of fact, there is much more in
developing CLP applications than just speed of the application itself.

--Micha

