Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!munnari!mulga!lee
From: lee@mulga.oz (Lee Naish)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: MU-Prolog
Message-ID: <2237@mulga.oz>
Date: Tue, 15-Sep-87 23:45:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: mulga.2237
Posted: Tue Sep 15 23:45:17 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Sep-87 06:45:06 EDT
References: <1285@bgsuvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: lee@mulga.UUCP (Lee Naish)
Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia
Lines: 22

In article <1285@bgsuvax.UUCP> maner@bgsuvax.UUCP (Walter Maner) writes:
>Could anyone compare MU-Prolog with Quintus (or CProlog) for me?  I don't
>need a diff on the respective feature lists.  What I need is something
>like "I've used X and Y and I prefer ___ because ___."  Hidden motive:
>We could stretch our budget to buy Quintus, but if MU-Prolog (or CProlog)
>will be adequate for research and instruction, we could spend the dollars
>elsewhere.

MU-Prolog is still being distributed by I recommend its successor,
NU-Prolog, which is a compiler based system and has many more features.

For most research I would recommend a compiler system.
For teaching the descision is not so clear cut.  If you have lots of
students in relation to machine cycles/memory and the projects you
are setting are small then an interpreter is probably desirable.

To choose between different compiler/interpreter systems you should
compare features and cost.  The thrust of our work at Melbourne Uni
on MU/NU-Prolog has been making the language closer to the ideals of
logic programming and having a good database facility.

	Lee Naish