Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site uiucuxc
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!chandra
From: chandra@uiucuxc.Uiuc.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Response to Hewitt
Message-ID: <28900014@uiucuxc>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 11:17:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucuxc.28900014
Posted: Wed Sep  4 11:17:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 05:03:06 EDT
References: <2049@bigburd.UUCP>
Lines: 12
Nf-ID: #R:bigburd.UUCP:-204900:uiucuxc:28900014:000:507
Nf-From: uiucuxc.Uiuc.ARPA!chandra    Sep  4 10:17:00 1985


Yes, that was the best response I have read in reply to Hewitt's argument
about Prolog vs. Lisp.

Prolog is more like a package rather than a programming language. One
really cannot compare the two. It is like comparing OPS-5 (a package) to
Lisp...

One should not forget that Hewitt is one of the originators of Prolog.
The planner program he wrote long ago was the motivation for the modern
prolog language we see today. If he thinks logic is not the best way to go,
he probably has a very good point.