Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!unizh!fuchs
From: fuchs@frederic.ifi.unizh.ch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Prolog's Practicability
Message-ID: <1990Nov28.095835.4265@ifi.unizh.ch>
Date: 28 Nov 90 09:58:35 GMT
Sender: fuchs@ifi.unizh.ch
Reply-To: fuchs@ifi.unizh.ch
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
Lines: 25

Everynow and then I get into a situation where I have to argue for Prolog's
practicability. 

It would help to point to success stories -- successful products based on
Prolog, visible advantages of using Prolog as a development tool, e.g. for
executable specifications, remarkably better quality of software products
based on Prolog or developed with the help of Prolog, etc.

I know of some success stories, e.g. the German PTT's XTEL, an expert system
for the configuration of telephone equipment, or Sandoz' scheduling system for
chemical production, but it would certainly help to know more, especially to
kmow why people decided to use Prolog, which advantages they expected, which
results they got.

I remember that Miguel Calejo of the University of Lisbon asked some time ago
a similar question. Unfortunately, I never saw all the answers.

Please e-mail to me directly. I will submit a summary to the net.

Norbert E. Fuchs
Department of Computer Science
University of Zurich
CH-8057 Zurich

fuchs@ifi.unizh.ch