Portability

There are Prolog implementations that are radically different, with different syntax and different semantics (e.g. Visual Prolog)² and sub-communities have developed around different implementations.³

Code that strictly conforms to the ISO-Prolog core language is portable across ISO-compliant implementations. However, the ISO standard for modules is an extension which was not fully adopted in most Prolog systems.⁴⁵

Factors that can adversely affect portability include: use of bounded vs. unbounded integer arithmetic, additional types such as string objects, advanced numeric types (rationals, complex), feature extensions such as Unicode, threads, and tabling.⁶ Use of libraries unavailable in other implementations and library organisation:⁷

Currently, the way predicates are spread over the libraries and system built-ins differs enormously. [...] Fortunately, there are only few cases where we find predicates with the same name but different semantics (e.g. delete/3)

Main features

Operating system and web-related features

Static analysis

Optimizations

Release

Benchmarks

• Benchmarking issues: Odd Prolog benchmarking, Performance differences.²¹
• Benchmarking software: older, Dobry's Benchmarks, Aquarius benchmark suite, (Bothe, 1990),²² (Demoen et al. 2001), benchmark descriptions
• Benchmarking results: B-Prolog, SICStus, XSB,²³ SICStus vs Yap vs hProlog²⁴
• Benchmarking results: Survey of java prolog engines by Michael Zeising
• Benchmarking results: OpenRuleBench yearly open-source benchmark of rule engines

Notes

External links

• Overview of Prolog Systems by Ulrich Neumerkel
• Conformity assessment I: Syntax

References

1. Philipp Körner; Michael Leuschel; João Barbosa; Vítor Santos Costa; Verónica Dahl; Manuel V. Hermenegildo; Jose F. Morales; Jan Wielemaker; Daniel Diaz; Salvador Abreu; Giovanni Ciatto (November 2022), "Fifty Years of Prolog and Beyond", Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 22 (6): 776–858, doi:10.1017/S1471068422000102, hdl:10174/33387 /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

2. Wielemaker, J.; Costa, V. T. S. (2011). "On the Portability of Prolog Applications". Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 6539. pp. 69–83. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1030.9396. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18378-2_8. ISBN 978-3-642-18377-5. 978-3-642-18377-5 ↩

3. Wielemaker, J.; Costa, V. T. S. (2011). "On the Portability of Prolog Applications". Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 6539. pp. 69–83. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1030.9396. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18378-2_8. ISBN 978-3-642-18377-5. 978-3-642-18377-5 ↩

4. Wielemaker, J.; Costa, V. T. S. (2011). "On the Portability of Prolog Applications". Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 6539. pp. 69–83. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1030.9396. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18378-2_8. ISBN 978-3-642-18377-5. 978-3-642-18377-5 ↩

5. Philipp Körner; Michael Leuschel; João Barbosa; Vítor Santos Costa; Verónica Dahl; Manuel V. Hermenegildo; Jose F. Morales; Jan Wielemaker; Daniel Diaz; Salvador Abreu; Giovanni Ciatto (November 2022), "Fifty Years of Prolog and Beyond", Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 22 (6): 776–858, doi:10.1017/S1471068422000102, hdl:10174/33387 /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

6. Jan Wielemaker and Vıtor Santos Costa: Portability of Prolog programs: theory and case-studies. CICLOPS-WLPE Workshop 2010 Archived 2010-07-16 at the Wayback Machine. http://www.swi-prolog.org/download/publications/porting.pdf ↩

7. Wielemaker, J.; Costa, V. T. S. (2011). "On the Portability of Prolog Applications". Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 6539. pp. 69–83. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1030.9396. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18378-2_8. ISBN 978-3-642-18377-5. 978-3-642-18377-5 ↩

8. C/Java interface can also be used for graphics and OS control. ↩

9. C/Java interface can also be used for graphics and OS control. ↩

10. Allegro Prolog https://franz.com/products/allegro-common-lisp/acl_prolog.lhtml ↩

11. "DOS-Prolog 8.0". Logic Programming Associates. 5 November 2023. https://www.lpa.co.uk/dos.htm ↩

12. JIProlog http://www.jiprolog.com ↩

13. "JLog Homepage". jlogic.sourceforge.net. Retrieved 2023-11-03. https://jlogic.sourceforge.net/ ↩

14. "JLog Homepage". jlogic.sourceforge.net. Retrieved 2023-11-03. https://jlogic.sourceforge.net/ ↩

15. "Jtrolog — Java.net". 2012-11-13. Archived from the original on 2012-11-13. Retrieved 2023-11-03. https://web.archive.org/web/20121113023104/http://java.net/projects/jTrolog ↩

16. "WIN-Prolog 8.0". Logic Programming Associates. 5 November 2023. https://www.lpa.co.uk/win.htm ↩

17. Open Prolog Home Page https://web.archive.org/web/20050203201646/http://www.cs.tcd.ie/open-prolog/ ↩

18. Scryer Prolog https://www.scryer.pl ↩

19. Strawberry Prolog https://dobrev.com ↩

20. tuProlog http://tuprolog.unibo.it ↩

21. B. Demoen, and P. Nguyen, About unnecessary performance differences between Prolog implementations, Proceedings of the Colloquium on Implementation of Constraint and Logic Programming Systems (CICLOPS 2001) ↩

22. Bothe, K. (1990). "A prolog space benchmark suite". ACM SIGPLAN Notices. 25 (12): 54–60. doi:10.1145/122193.122197. https://doi.org/10.1145%2F122193.122197 ↩

23. A Summary of XSB Performance (1993) http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/swift93summary.html ↩

24. Demoen, B.; Nguyen, P. L.; Vandeginste, R. (2002). "Copying Garbage Collection for the WAM: to Mark or Not to Mark?". Logic Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 2401. pp. 194–208. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.13.2586. doi:10.1007/3-540-45619-8_14. ISBN 978-3-540-43930-1. 978-3-540-43930-1 ↩