Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!ivax!mmh
From: mmh@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Let's update the List-of-Prologs!
Keywords: More Prologs than you can shake a stick at! (Or would want to... )
Message-ID: <928@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 8 Jul 89 18:02:07 GMT
References: <8742@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Sender: news@doc.ic.ac.uk
Reply-To: mmh@doc.ic.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK.
Lines: 27

In article <8742@thorin.cs.unc.edu> bts@evergreen.cs.unc.edu (Bruce Smith) writes:
>to make it current, again.  Last year's list included information
>on over 50 Prologs:
>
>    PARLOG, Personal Prolog, POPLOG, Prolog-1, Prolog-2,
     ^^^^^^

>also no nothing on Wisdom Prolog, Strand and several others that
                                   ^^^^^^

Having worked on the language for the past three years, I do not consider
PARLOG to be "a Prolog". Taking away built-in backtracking and full unification
but adding concurrency make it a completely different language.  I feel it
is positively harmful to approach PARLOG from the view that it is a "parallel
Prolog" since this tends to emphasise its restrictions vis-a-vis Prolog but
to hide its powers.

Opinions within the concurrent logic language community tend to vary between
those who would like to bring it back towards Prolog (e.g. with varieties 
like Pandora) and those who have recognised it is a powerful language in its
own right and concentrate on exploring its capabilities or developing robust
commercial versions (of which Strand is one).

This is my personal opinion, not necessarily shard by other members of the
PARLOG group.

  Matthew Huntbach, Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London UK.