Comment by kmicinski

No offense, but I wouldn't take Datalog 2.0's small attendance as an exemplar of Datalog's decline, even if I agree with that high-level point. Datalog 2.0 is a satellite workshop of LPNMR, a relatively-unknown European conference that was randomly held in Dallas. I myself attended Datalog 2.0 and also felt the event felt relatively sparse. I also had a paper (not my primary work, the first author is the real wizard of course :-) at the workshop. I myself saw relatively few folks in that space even attending that event--with the notable exception of some European folks (e.g., introducing the Nemo solver).

All of this is to say, I think Datalog 2.0's sparse attendance this year may be more indicative of the fact that it is a satellite workshop of an already-lesser-prestigious conference (itself not even the main event! That was ICLP!) rather than a lack of Datalog implementation excitement.

For what it's worth, none of what I'm saying is meant to rebut your high-level point that there is little novelty left in implementing raw Datalog engines. Of course I agree, the research space has moved far beyond that (arguably it did a while ago) and into more exotic problems involving things like streaming (HydroFlow), choice (Dusa), things that get closer to the general chase (e.g., Egglog's chase engine), etc. I don't think anyone disagrees that vanilla Datalog is boring, it's just that monotonic, chain-forward saturation (Horn clauses!) are a rich baseline with a well-understood engineering landscape (esp in the high-performance space) to build out more interesting theories (semirings, Z-sets, etc..).