article · ACM SIGPLAN Notices · 1983
Prolog compared with LISP?
Cited by 12Open access
Abstract
In the recent ACM Symposium on LISP and Functional Programming, there was a paper with the title "Prolog Compared With LISP" [2] . In it, Gutierrez presents a program in LISP, and a related program in Prolog, and uses the inferior performance of the latter to suggest in strong terms that advocates of Prolog may have over-stated its performance. However, his program makes very poor use of Prolog. In this article, I point out which features of Prolog have been misused and give guidelines for their proper use. I also compare a new Prolog and LISP program performing a similar task, and find that the execution times are comparable. This is in accord with earlier results [4].
Cite this paper
O’Keefe, R. A. (1983). Prolog compared with LISP? ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 18(5), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/948249.948255
O’Keefe, Richard A. “Prolog compared with LISP?” ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 18, no. 5, 1983, pp. 46–56, https://doi.org/10.1145/948249.948255.
O’Keefe, Richard A. 1983. “Prolog compared with LISP?” ACM SIGPLAN Notices 18 (5): 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/948249.948255.
O’Keefe, R.A. (1983) ‘Prolog compared with LISP?’, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 18(5), pp. 46–56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/948249.948255.
@article{okeefe1983prolog,
title = {{Prolog compared with LISP?}},
author = {O’Keefe, Richard A.},
journal = {ACM SIGPLAN Notices},
volume = {18},
number = {5},
pages = {46--56},
year = {1983},
doi = {10.1145/948249.948255}
}Made from the index record. Check names, capitalisation and page numbers against the paper. Need another style? AI for Research has over 10,000.