Comment by upghost

Comment by upghost 3 days ago

> Prolog is honestly kind of jank, and I’m not talking about good vintage jank like C.

Respectfully I would encourage you to consider this comment is confusing bad Prolog with all Prolog, and you are really missing out on some elegant and powerful concepts if you believe Prolog stops here.

I would love this to be an invitation for you to reevaluate modern Prolog and see what the language is really capable of.

I'll throw you right in the deep end with Prolog Definite Clause Grammars[1] and meta-interpreters[2].

There are a few things which are very special and magical to Prolog which are quite mind expanding. I hope you enjoy the resources.

[1]: https://youtu.be/CvLsVfq6cks

[2]: https://youtu.be/nmBkU-l1zyc

sirwhinesalot 2 days ago

DCGs are cute, I like that writing something that looks like a grammar allows you to very easily generate sentences for that grammar. That's amazing for things like property-based testing.

But why wouldn't you use Mercury instead? No extra-logical nonsense like cuts, IO done properly with linear types, much better performance, etc. DCGs aren't exclusive to Prolog, why suffer the janky bits?

And while they're not built-in to it, Soufflé Datalog supports algebraic datatypes (so you can model difference lists), and you could preprocess a DCG into the native clause form plus a length tracking argument to prevent it from creating an infinitely sized database.

I've never worked with meta-interpreters so I can't comment on those, but I will try to watch the video you posted later.

Reply View 3 replies

upghost 2 days ago

That's a great question. The answer to "why wouldn't you use Mercury instead?" should hopefully be more clear when you watch the meta-interpeter video. The syntax of Prolog is not accidental, and this is a case where it really matters. You sacrifice a lot of power by introducing things like dot access notation.
Additionally, there is nothing stopping you from writing pure monotonic Prolog, which does not involve cuts and uses pure IO.
Circling back to DCGs, the combination of DCGs plus interpreters, which can be expressed in a handful of lines of code, allows for powerful language crafting.
While constraint solvers are not unique to Prolog, CS+DCG+MI is a killer combination I've only ever seen in Prolog that when combined allow you to solve some wicked problems rather elegantly.
That being said, thanks for the reminder about Mercury, that looks like it could come in handy on some Java-only projects.
This is DCG+CS only, still quite powerful and I have adapted it for GOAP and Hierarchical Task Networks quite successfully: https://www.metalevel.at/zurg/
Finally, I will agree with you that there is a LOT of jank Prolog, but not ALL Prolog is jank, and some Prolog is truly exquisite-- I hope you will keep an eye out for it.

Reply View | 2 replies
- sirwhinesalot a day ago
  
  Don't know if you're still reading this thread but just in case I finally got around to watching the meta-interpreter video. I can definitely see why Prolog shines for this.
  Though even in that video we see a display of "jank", e.g., needing to ensure that rules don't overlap, being careful with introducing redundant choicepoints, permission errors, the trick with +, etc. in the vanilla meta-interpreter and the workarounds to get efficient tail recursion in the list-based meta-interpreter.
  However, I don't think there's any way to avoid such "jank" when implementing something this powerful. The "jank" is the price to be able to do this. So fair point that this is something Prolog, and only Prolog, can do.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  upghost a day ago
  
  You made my day. I am a long time lisp developer who held a similar view of Prolog for a very long time until for various reasons I stumbled on these videos, and then realized there was a whole aspect to the language I was unaware of that went beyond the logic. Really great community developing around this stuff particularly with Scryer and Trealla that are very active if you are interested in discussing any of this further.
  The fact that we were able to have this exchange was great. I appreciate your points and look forward to incorporating your work into mine!
  
  Reply View | 0 replies