Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!hubcap!steve
From: steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Prolog as a "real" language
Message-ID: <1315@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 6 Apr 88 11:55:31 GMT
References: <1926@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC
Lines: 19

From article <1926@ubc-cs.UUCP>, by voda@ubc-cs (Paul Voda):
> The first group is willing to sacrifice the logic in order to attain
> efficiency. These are the assert, retract, and var users who want
> to have all the goodies from the procedural languages (arrays,
> reassignable variables, exceptions) right now. The only thing that
> matters to them is the efficiency.

Even though you claim to eschew polemics, seems you fell into it anyway.
IF prolog is to be a good model then it must offer to deal with 
all current issues - that's what equivalence of language means.

If you insist that arrays are not legitimate, then how will you
address mathematics?  I have had several numerical types who say
they really like the idea of prolog, but no arrays makes it impossible
to consider "numerical logic programming."  Let's pull together, folks.

-- 
Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson           steve@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science,            (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906