Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!glacier!jbn
From: jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Comparing symbolic languages with imperative languages
Message-ID: <18123@glacier.STANFORD.EDU>
Date: 21 Feb 89 22:40:45 GMT
References: <28112@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 13

In article <28112@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> vanroy@bellatrix.uucp () writes:
>  At Berkeley, we are developing such an architecture for the Prolog language.
>We are designing it from the start as a complete system, i.e. compiler,
>instruction set architecture, and (single-chip) implementation are being
>developed together with feedback in all directions.  In this way we hope to
>overcome some of the limitations of previous implementations of Prolog.

      The Japanese Fifth Generation effort was supposed to do exactly this.
Their original list of goals, circa 1984, included the development of a 
"Prolog engine", capable of >1M "logical inferences per second" (i.e.
Prolog statement executions).  Whatever happened to that effort?

				John Nagle