Talk:Comparison of Prolog implementations

A nice comparison between Prolog implementations is here:

http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/prolog_misc/systems.html

For many users of interest are especially the CLP capabilities.

This is very useful. I added a link under the "external links" section. Cmungall (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amzi! Prolog

Can you include Amzi! Prolog, in the comparison table, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.82.131.79 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TCO

Yes I also feel that the comparison could be improved. The table with static and dynamic analysis is a good start. But the problem is that in my opinion the dynamic analysis is redundant to the column "Code Profiler" of the toolkit section. Since tail call optimization has a set of aspects, I would suggest to replace the current dynamic analysis columns by:

  - Choice Point Elimination
  - Environment Trimming
  - Last Call Optimization

This would mean that dynamic analysis refers to optimizations done by the Prolog system at runtime. Often the WAM instructions are able to do these optimizations, but also non-WAM based Prologs can do it, i.e. for example Jekejeke Prolog. Janburse (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be extremely useful to see which systems implement Tail call optimization. Is anyone aware of a comprehensive survey? I'm sure the main systems (XSB, SWI, Sicstus etc) all implement this, but some of the niche prologs may not. I'm particularly interested in which JVM prologs implement TCO - I did some informal testing a while ago and the results were disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmungall (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prova

Would it be appropriate to add Prova to the list? It's not strictly a prolog engine but has enough overlap to be relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmungall (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]