Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!oberon!sm.unisys.com!aero!carl
From: carl@hemlock.aero.org (Carl Kesselman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Comparing Prolog with other languages
Keywords: performance, what is symbolic?
Message-ID: <46651@aero.ARPA>
Date: 24 Feb 89 22:30:45 GMT
References: <28091@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <6967@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Sender: news@aero.ARPA
Reply-To: carl@aerospace.aero.org (Carl Kesselman)
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 10

Mats Carlsson and I have spent a bit of time studying a propositional 
therom prover written by Ross Overbeek.  Ross origionally wrote identical
versions in C and Prolog with the C version being much faster.  However,
after studying the program using the Gauge performance analysis system,
we were able to get the prolog performance within 25% of the C version.
Both Gauge and the theorm prover were run under Sicstus prolog.  The
execution time for the prover was obtained using a preliminary version 
of a native code compiler.

Carl