Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!eclipse!usenet
From: paulward@torolab.ibm.com (paulward)
Subject: Re: Efficiency of Prolog
Sender: usenet@eclipse.torolab.ibm.com (eclipse sysadm)
Message-ID: <PAULWARD.95Dec1111945@skyhawk.torolab.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: rwab1@cl.cam.ac.uk's message of 1 Dec 1995 11:06:58 GMT
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 16:19:45 GMT
Lines: 17
References: <49h0kg$74o@disunms.epfl.ch> <49mnki$lfq@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
Organization: IBM

>>>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Becket <rwab1@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:

Ralph> That's a tricky one.  Hmm, it's obvious that once a problem is
Ralph> sufficiently well understood (i.e. datastructures + algorithms)
Ralph> an implementation in C is certainly going to run faster than
Ralph> the equivalent Prolog system.

It is?  This does not seem so obvious to me.  It strikes me as a
similar to the frequent assertion that "nothing is faster than
machine/assembler language."  It sounds true, but isn't.  The reason:
a smart optimizing compiler can make improvements over code ranges
that no person could keep in his/her head.
-- 
-- Paul (paulward@vnet.ibm.com)
   DB2/6000 and DB2/PE Development.
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; 
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.     Prov 25:21
