Newsgroups: comp.constraints
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.bc.net!newsserver.sfu.ca!fornax!jamie
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: TRILOGY CLP
Message-ID: <1995Feb4.004302.12701@cs.sfu.ca>
Keywords: PROLOG II
Organization: Faculty of Applied Science, Simon Fraser University
References: <ryder.6.00066BEC@mbnet.mb.ca>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 00:43:02 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <ryder.6.00066BEC@mbnet.mb.ca>,  <ryder@mbnet.mb.ca> wrote:
>Phil Perucci mentioned TRILOGY CLP with wishes for a commercial
>version and the expression (PROLOG II). I suppose that could refer
>to the fact theat PROLOG seems now not be in favor due to speed etc.
> 
>As far as I understand the TRILOGY CLP isn't based on PROLOG at
>all although it has the capabilities of PROLOG with a lot more speed.

     Just a delayed response... I agree that Prolog is not much
in favour, and that this is due to *perceptions* about its
speed, but I just wanted to point out that the perceptions are
largely not correct anymore.

     Trilogy was built with techniques which were close to the
leading edge of logic programming compiler construction at the
time (1987 or so) but which are now standard on many systems.
Compiled Trilogy programs are faster than interpreted Prolog
programs, but are not as fast as modern compiled Prolog programs.
I'm pretty sure Trilogy was the fastest PC-based CLP language; I
don't know if that's true anymore.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?"
