Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!a.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!gooley
From: gooley@s.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: query
Message-ID: <208500001@s.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 88 10:18:00 GMT
References: <6481@altaira.srcsip.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:altaira.srcsip.UUCP:6481:s.cs.uiuc.edu:208500001:000:809
Nf-From: s.cs.uiuc.edu!gooley    Jul 25 05:18:00 1988


Wasn't there some talk about OPS5 awhile back in this notesfile (over a
year ago)?  Somebody hand-translated a few standard OPS5 benchmarks (such
as monkey-and-bananas) into Prolog and found that the Prolog versions,
even using C-Prolog, were much faster than the OPS5.  I don't recall
seeing anything at that time about an automatic translator, though...but
this shows that such a gadget might be useful.  Then again, there's been
some talk recently of optimizing compilers for OPS5, and even of something
vaguely resembling a WAM (it's a building-block of the PESA-1 machine, if
memory serves, not a stand-alone serial machine like the WAM).  Therefore,
implementations of OPS5 seem slowly to be coming up to the standard for
those of Prolog.

Anybody have more details?

Mark. Gooley, gooley@s.cs.uiuc.edu