Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!csusac!csus.edu!netcom.com!ludemann
From: ludemann@netcom.com (Peter Ludemann)
Subject: Re: Basic Q on Prolog/Lisp
Message-ID: <ludemannCy060E.DD0@netcom.com>
Summary: The answer was given 11 years ago 
Keywords: Prolog Lisp
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <552@swallow.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 03:07:23 GMT
Lines: 20

In article <552@swallow.ukc.ac.uk>, C.S.Williams <csw4@ukc.ac.uk> wrote:
>Can someone tell me just how similar Lisp is to Prolog?
>I know Prolog but I don't know Lisp, so what common 
>features does it share with Prolog?

[This should be added to the Prolog and Lisp FAQs.]

Richard A. O'Keefe. "Prolog Compared with Lisp".
SIGPLAN Notices Vol. 18 No. 5, May 1983, pp 46-56.

"This was a reply to a paper which attacked David Warren's claim that
Prolog was close to Lisp in speed.  [O'Keefe] showed that it was
possible to do substantially better in both Prolog and Lisp than the
paper [he] was responding to, and gave some guidelines for when to use
the dynamic data base (as seldom as you can) and when to use lists
(often, but no *that* often").  [R. O'Keefe, "The Craft of Prolog",
MIT Press 1990]

-- 
Peter Ludemann                      ludemann@netcom.com
