 Logic Programming
started 3/18/2001; 2:48:32 AM - last post 3/18/2001; 12:50:22 PM
|
|
andrew cooke - Logic Programming 
3/18/2001; 2:48:32 AM (reads: 1326, responses: 3)
|
|
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Logic Programming
3/18/2001; 5:18:24 AM (reads: 868, responses: 1)
|
|
|
All this makes me wonder whether logic programming is cohesive enough to be called a paradigm. It seems, from these comments, to be a mixture of two things. One is the declerative approach, which, in essence, favours writing what you want and not how to get it done. The other component seems to be that the language support some explicit form of logic.
It is not hard to see why these go together, but maybe that causes confusion.
|
|
andrew cooke - Re: Logic Programming
3/18/2001; 5:23:44 AM (reads: 972, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I think Mercury's development supports this - I get the impression that despite being a Prolog descendent, it's more useful as a general functional language (with a type system that seems similar to Haskell, but more flexible, and with strict semantics).
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Logic Programming
3/18/2001; 12:50:22 PM (reads: 852, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Let me elaborate a bit.
An APL/J statement like +/A can be understood as request to sum an array. It is not a loop specification. Things get even more interesting with more elaborate defintions. I suggest those interested study the wonderful J stuff discussed here in the past.
Another example may be a SETL specification.
In both cases we are, at least to some extent, declerative. Neither, I think, would be considered an LP language.
Indeed it is almost a tautology to say that the more high level a language is, the more declerative it gets.
|
|
|
|