From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

The only problem is Rust is shiiiit.
At least some argument about precise
garbage collection induced by immediate

malloc / free doesn't strike me as
convincing. Many modern programming
languages don't use the malloc / free

paradigma for memory management. You
don't get automatically pause free
systems when relying on malloc / free.

It can be even worse. I have seen browsers
that take a while to close a window
because they did synchrously release all

the resources of a window. So there
is a fallacy involved in all believes that
immediate malloc / free leads to pause

free systems, it can be even worse.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
  Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
  Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Yesterday I did again some testing of the
unification algorithm. Somehow Scryer is
also a moving target, so my measurement for

Scryer Prolog has somehow changed. Possibly
because I changed the test cases a little bit,
used the (\+ \+) to have different scenarios.

But with the new hybrid prototype from
yesterday it shows for bisimulation (=)/2
resp (==)/2 and the N = 1’048’576 test case:

Hybrid Solution

Test Java JavaScript Python Scryer
(=)/2 99 115 469 132
(==)/2 68 71 140 127

Ok, the Python almost beats Rust, was
exaggerating for the effect, and only
for (==)/2, we have still 140 > 127.

And otherwise for (=)/2 its drastic 469 > 132.
Not sure what is going on in the (=)/2,
why Python is so slow. On the other hand

Java and JavaScript run away from Rust,
are better in my implementation if bisimulation
and Jaffar's Unification, not significantly,

but noticeable I suspect.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

The only problem is Rust is shiiiit.
At least some argument about precise
garbage collection induced by immediate

malloc / free doesn't strike me as
convincing. Many modern programming
languages don't use the malloc / free

paradigma for memory management. You
don't get automatically pause free
systems when relying on malloc / free.

It can be even worse. I have seen browsers
that take a while to close a window
because they did synchrously release all

the resources of a window. So there
is a fallacy involved in all believes that
immediate malloc / free leads to pause

free systems, it can be even worse.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
   Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
   Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Now I have the feeling that Trealla implements
the extreme of Jaffar's Unification, to the extend
that it keeps and trails functor linking? Was

studying the source of Trealla . Have also the
impression that it uses a very large native stack.
Is this trailing what gave it the name Trealla,

despite the geographic beach location with such a name ?
BTW: I have new benchmark results (*) = Dogelog:

Test | Java (*) | JavaScript (*) | Python (*) | Scryer | Trealla
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
(=)/2 | 184 | 514 | 1750 | 210 | 53
unify_with_occurs_check/2 | 213 | 601 | 2344 | N/A | 53
(==)/2 | 95 | 227 | 1265 | 250 | 65
compare/3 | 86 | 221 | 1328 | 250 | 65
copy_term/2 | 409 | 589 | 2579 | 108 | N/A
term_variables/2 | 168 | 318 | 1469 | 166 | 90
ground/1 | 40 | 120 | 516 | 70 | 121
acyclic_term/1 | 129 | 290 | 1281 | 386 | N/A
numbervars/3 | 170 | 327 | 1516 | 164 | 100

Pitty `copy_term/2` and `acyclic_term/1` do not
yet work with a hydra example.

I am using a hydra variant, which puts less
pressure on the memory, but does benchmark
the built-ins in a loop, so that I see some

numbers. My problem was that Trealla was
below the 1 ms mesurememt:
```
hydra(0, _) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X)) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X).

hydra(0, A, A) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X), A) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X, A).

/* Binary Built-ins */
bench :-
hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
time((between(1,64,_), X = Y, fail; true)),
time((between(1,64,_), unify_with_occurs_check(X, Y), fail; true)),
time((between(1,64,_), X == Y, fail; true)),
time((between(1,64,_), compare(_, X, Y), fail; true)), fail; true.

/* Unary Built-ins */
bench2 :-
hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
time((between(1,64,_), copy_term(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
time((between(1,64,_), term_variables(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
time((between(1,64,_), ground(X-Y), fail; true)),
time((between(1,64,_), acyclic_term(X-Y), fail; true)),
fail; true.

/* Misc Built-ins */
bench3 :-
hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
time((between(1,64,_), numbervars(X-Y,0,_), fail; true)),
fail; true.
```
Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
  Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
  Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Information for Boris the Loris, chief grammar
Nazi of SWI-Prolog discourse. Here is a summary
of my No Fuzz(y) declaration for the

Trealla & Co. benchmarking from my previous post:

- No fuzzy logic involved.
Its all binary.

- No fuzzy testing involved.
Its all manual testing.

- No fuzz testing involved.
See above fuzzy testig.

- No fuzzing test involved.
See above fuzzy testig.

What about the American Fuzzy Lop (AFL),
a free software fuzzer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop_%28software%29

Or was a breed of rabbit, by the
the name American Fuzzy Lop involved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop

No neither of the 2 AFLs were involved.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now I have the feeling that Trealla implements
the extreme of Jaffar's Unification, to the extend
that it keeps and trails functor linking? Was

studying the source of Trealla . Have also the
impression that it uses a very large native stack.
Is this trailing what gave it the name Trealla,

despite the geographic beach location with such a name ?
BTW: I have new benchmark results (*) = Dogelog:

Test | Java (*) | JavaScript (*) | Python (*) | Scryer | Trealla
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
(=)/2 | 184 | 514 | 1750 | 210 | 53
unify_with_occurs_check/2 | 213 | 601 | 2344 | N/A | 53
(==)/2 | 95 | 227 | 1265 | 250 | 65
compare/3 | 86 | 221 | 1328 | 250 | 65
copy_term/2 | 409 | 589 | 2579 | 108 | N/A
term_variables/2 | 168 | 318 | 1469 | 166 | 90
ground/1 | 40 | 120 | 516 | 70 | 121
acyclic_term/1 | 129 | 290 | 1281 | 386 | N/A
numbervars/3 | 170 | 327 | 1516 | 164 | 100

Pitty `copy_term/2` and `acyclic_term/1` do not
yet work with a hydra example.

I am using a hydra variant, which puts less
pressure on the memory, but does benchmark
the built-ins in a loop, so that I see some

numbers. My problem was that Trealla was
below the 1 ms mesurememt:
```
hydra(0, _) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X)) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X).

hydra(0, A, A) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X), A) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X, A).

/* Binary Built-ins */
bench :-
   hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
   time((between(1,64,_), X = Y, fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), unify_with_occurs_check(X, Y), fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), X == Y, fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), compare(_, X, Y), fail; true)), fail; true.

/* Unary Built-ins */
bench2 :-
   hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
   time((between(1,64,_), copy_term(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), term_variables(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), ground(X-Y), fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), acyclic_term(X-Y), fail; true)),
   fail; true.

/* Misc Built-ins */
bench3 :-
   hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
   time((between(1,64,_), numbervars(X-Y,0,_), fail; true)),
   fail; true.
```
Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
   Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
   Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Was Boris living under a rock, maybe on
the moon in a secret Nazi Facility?

Who knows, maybe he was in another facility,
some kind of mental asylum, until he was

hired by SWI-Prolog. How many Fuzzy Testing
tools are there? Actually plenty:

http://fuzzing-survey.org/

Some excerpt:

Creal
FishFuzz
ParmeSan
WindRanger
loFuzz
UAFL
HAFL
MobFuzz
WINNIE
CAFL
DynSQL
MirageFuzz
IRFU
PhyFu
NestFuzz
AMPFuzz
MC2
AIFORE
IPEA-Fuzz
FuzzlnMem
CarpetFuzz
JIGSAW
YARPGen
PDGF
BEACON
Mallory
Fuzz
LLM-Fuzzer
FAST
DAFL
OddFuzz
KRAKEN
CDFUZ7
MALinten+
ChatAFL
TWINFUZ7
DeepGo
xFUZZ
FreeWavm
Halo
Select
Titan
Etc...

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Information for Boris the Loris, chief grammar
Nazi of SWI-Prolog discourse. Here is a summary
of my No Fuzz(y) declaration for the

Trealla & Co. benchmarking from my previous post:

- No fuzzy logic involved.
  Its all binary.

- No fuzzy testing involved.
  Its all manual testing.

- No fuzz testing involved.
  See above fuzzy testig.

- No fuzzing test involved.
  See above fuzzy testig.

What about the American Fuzzy Lop (AFL),
a free software fuzzer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop_%28software%29

Or was a breed of rabbit, by the
the name American Fuzzy Lop involved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop

No neither of the 2 AFLs were involved.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now I have the feeling that Trealla implements
the extreme of Jaffar's Unification, to the extend
that it keeps and trails functor linking? Was

studying the source of Trealla . Have also the
impression that it uses a very large native stack.
Is this trailing what gave it the name Trealla,

despite the geographic beach location with such a name ?
BTW: I have new benchmark results (*) = Dogelog:

Test | Java (*) | JavaScript (*) | Python (*) | Scryer | Trealla
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
(=)/2 | 184 | 514 | 1750 | 210 | 53
unify_with_occurs_check/2 | 213 | 601 | 2344 | N/A | 53
(==)/2 | 95 | 227 | 1265 | 250 | 65
compare/3 | 86 | 221 | 1328 | 250 | 65
copy_term/2 | 409 | 589 | 2579 | 108 | N/A
term_variables/2 | 168 | 318 | 1469 | 166 | 90
ground/1 | 40 | 120 | 516 | 70 | 121
acyclic_term/1 | 129 | 290 | 1281 | 386 | N/A
numbervars/3 | 170 | 327 | 1516 | 164 | 100

Pitty `copy_term/2` and `acyclic_term/1` do not
yet work with a hydra example.

I am using a hydra variant, which puts less
pressure on the memory, but does benchmark
the built-ins in a loop, so that I see some

numbers. My problem was that Trealla was
below the 1 ms mesurememt:
```
hydra(0, _) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X)) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X).

hydra(0, A, A) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X), A) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X, A).

/* Binary Built-ins */
bench :-
    hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
    time((between(1,64,_), X = Y, fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), unify_with_occurs_check(X, Y), fail; true)), >>     time((between(1,64,_), X == Y, fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), compare(_, X, Y), fail; true)), fail; true.

/* Unary Built-ins */
bench2 :-
    hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
    time((between(1,64,_), copy_term(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), term_variables(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), ground(X-Y), fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), acyclic_term(X-Y), fail; true)),
    fail; true.

/* Misc Built-ins */
bench3 :-
    hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
    time((between(1,64,_), numbervars(X-Y,0,_), fail; true)),
    fail; true.
```
Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
   Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
   Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Maybe Boris the Loris is even not a Nazi-Retard.
Maybe he is a payed Troll on Putins payroll?

Similarly Julio Di Egidio, all his posts indicate
some radical anti-capitalist stance, mostlikely

just a romantic communist that exist in the thousands
in Italy, and other south European countries.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Was Boris living under a rock, maybe on
the moon in a secret Nazi Facility?

Who knows, maybe he was in another facility,
some kind of mental asylum, until he was

hired by SWI-Prolog. How many Fuzzy Testing
tools are there? Actually plenty:

http://fuzzing-survey.org/

Some excerpt:

Creal
FishFuzz
ParmeSan
WindRanger
loFuzz
UAFL
HAFL
MobFuzz
WINNIE
CAFL
DynSQL
MirageFuzz
IRFU
PhyFu
NestFuzz
AMPFuzz
MC2
AIFORE
IPEA-Fuzz
FuzzlnMem
CarpetFuzz
JIGSAW
YARPGen
PDGF
BEACON
Mallory
Fuzz
LLM-Fuzzer
FAST
DAFL
OddFuzz
KRAKEN
CDFUZ7
MALinten+
ChatAFL
TWINFUZ7
DeepGo
xFUZZ
FreeWavm
Halo
Select
Titan
Etc...

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Information for Boris the Loris, chief grammar
Nazi of SWI-Prolog discourse. Here is a summary
of my No Fuzz(y) declaration for the

Trealla & Co. benchmarking from my previous post:

- No fuzzy logic involved.
   Its all binary.

- No fuzzy testing involved.
   Its all manual testing.

- No fuzz testing involved.
   See above fuzzy testig.

- No fuzzing test involved.
   See above fuzzy testig.

What about the American Fuzzy Lop (AFL),
a free software fuzzer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop_%28software%29

Or was a breed of rabbit, by the
the name American Fuzzy Lop involved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop

No neither of the 2 AFLs were involved.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now I have the feeling that Trealla implements
the extreme of Jaffar's Unification, to the extend
that it keeps and trails functor linking? Was

studying the source of Trealla . Have also the
impression that it uses a very large native stack.
Is this trailing what gave it the name Trealla,

despite the geographic beach location with such a name ?
BTW: I have new benchmark results (*) = Dogelog:

Test | Java (*) | JavaScript (*) | Python (*) | Scryer | Trealla
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
(=)/2 | 184 | 514 | 1750 | 210 | 53
unify_with_occurs_check/2 | 213 | 601 | 2344 | N/A | 53
(==)/2 | 95 | 227 | 1265 | 250 | 65
compare/3 | 86 | 221 | 1328 | 250 | 65
copy_term/2 | 409 | 589 | 2579 | 108 | N/A
term_variables/2 | 168 | 318 | 1469 | 166 | 90
ground/1 | 40 | 120 | 516 | 70 | 121
acyclic_term/1 | 129 | 290 | 1281 | 386 | N/A
numbervars/3 | 170 | 327 | 1516 | 164 | 100

Pitty `copy_term/2` and `acyclic_term/1` do not
yet work with a hydra example.

I am using a hydra variant, which puts less
pressure on the memory, but does benchmark
the built-ins in a loop, so that I see some

numbers. My problem was that Trealla was
below the 1 ms mesurememt:
```
hydra(0, _) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X)) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X).

hydra(0, A, A) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X), A) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X, A).

/* Binary Built-ins */
bench :-
    hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
    time((between(1,64,_), X = Y, fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), unify_with_occurs_check(X, Y), fail; true)), >>>     time((between(1,64,_), X == Y, fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), compare(_, X, Y), fail; true)), fail; true. >>>
/* Unary Built-ins */
bench2 :-
    hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
    time((between(1,64,_), copy_term(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), term_variables(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), ground(X-Y), fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), acyclic_term(X-Y), fail; true)),
    fail; true.

/* Misc Built-ins */
bench3 :-
    hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
    time((between(1,64,_), numbervars(X-Y,0,_), fail; true)),
    fail; true.
```
Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
   Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
   Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Tricky problem, how validate unify_with_occurs_check/2 ?
If the two arguments S and T are acyclic terms, the
unify_with_occurs_check/2 can be simulated as follows:

/* simulation */
unify_with_occurs_check2(X, Y) :-
X = Y, acyclic_term(X).

It also shows that theoretically the problem can be
solved in quasi linear time, since (=)/2 is quasi linear
and acyclic_term/1 is linear.

Now I find that unify_with_occurs_check2/2 and
unify_with_occurs_check/2 do not agree in Trealla
Prolog. For this test case for example:

/* Trealla Prolog 2.83.11 */
/* built-in */
?- S = s(s(A,s(B,A)),1), T = s(s(C,C),1),
unify_with_occurs_check(S,T).
S = s(s(s(B,A),s(B,A)),1), A = s(B,A),
T = s(s(s(B,A),s(B,A)),1), C = s(B,A).

/* simulation */
?- S = s(s(A,s(B,A)),1), T = s(s(C,C),1),
unify_with_occurs_check2(S,T).
false.

One can also check with Scryer Prolog it has
also a different result for the pair S and T:

/* Scryer Prolog 0.10.0 */
/* built-in */
?- S = s(s(A,s(B,A)),1), T = s(s(C,C),1),
unify_with_occurs_check(S,T).
false.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now I have the feeling that Trealla implements
the extreme of Jaffar's Unification, to the extend
that it keeps and trails functor linking? Was

studying the source of Trealla . Have also the
impression that it uses a very large native stack.
Is this trailing what gave it the name Trealla,

despite the geographic beach location with such a name ?
BTW: I have new benchmark results (*) = Dogelog:

Test | Java (*) | JavaScript (*) | Python (*) | Scryer | Trealla
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
(=)/2 | 184 | 514 | 1750 | 210 | 53
unify_with_occurs_check/2 | 213 | 601 | 2344 | N/A | 53
(==)/2 | 95 | 227 | 1265 | 250 | 65
compare/3 | 86 | 221 | 1328 | 250 | 65
copy_term/2 | 409 | 589 | 2579 | 108 | N/A
term_variables/2 | 168 | 318 | 1469 | 166 | 90
ground/1 | 40 | 120 | 516 | 70 | 121
acyclic_term/1 | 129 | 290 | 1281 | 386 | N/A
numbervars/3 | 170 | 327 | 1516 | 164 | 100

Pitty `copy_term/2` and `acyclic_term/1` do not
yet work with a hydra example.

I am using a hydra variant, which puts less
pressure on the memory, but does benchmark
the built-ins in a loop, so that I see some

numbers. My problem was that Trealla was
below the 1 ms mesurememt:
```
hydra(0, _) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X)) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X).

hydra(0, A, A) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X), A) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X, A).

/* Binary Built-ins */
bench :-
   hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
   time((between(1,64,_), X = Y, fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), unify_with_occurs_check(X, Y), fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), X == Y, fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), compare(_, X, Y), fail; true)), fail; true.

/* Unary Built-ins */
bench2 :-
   hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
   time((between(1,64,_), copy_term(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), term_variables(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), ground(X-Y), fail; true)),
   time((between(1,64,_), acyclic_term(X-Y), fail; true)),
   fail; true.

/* Misc Built-ins */
bench3 :-
   hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
   time((between(1,64,_), numbervars(X-Y,0,_), fail; true)),
   fail; true.
```
Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Yeah, Boris the Loris saw it all comming,
when he mentioned that the Prolog Community
is probably overwhelmed by Fuzzy Testing.

And I must confess, I succumbed to the guilty
pleasure of Fuzzy Testing. To find a pair S, T
I used this fuzzy testing device:

needle(S, T) :-
between(1,1000,_),
sample((pick(T), acyclic_term(T))),
sample((pick(S), acyclic_term(S))),
\+ ((unify_with_occurs_check(T, S) -> A = 1; A = 0),
(unify_with_occurs_check2(T, S) -> B = 1; B = 0),
A == B).

With this sample generator. It has slight
modification in pick/1, it starts with [T,_,_]
instead of [T], so that non-linear acyclic terms

are created, which is required that unification
leads to cricles. Only unify acyclic linear terms
with each other that have disjoint variables,

doesn't give cyclic terms. So this modification
is needed so that we find something at all:

sample(G) :-
term_variables(G, L),
repeat, maplist(pick, L),
G, !.

pick(T) :-
pick([T,_,_], T).

pick(L, T) :-
random(V), N is truncate(V*3),
(N = 0 -> T = 1;
N = 1 -> T = s(P,Q), pick([P|L], P), pick([Q|L], Q);
length(L, M),
random(W), I is truncate(W*M),
nth0(I, L, S), S = T).

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Tricky problem, how validate unify_with_occurs_check/2 ?
If the two arguments S and T are acyclic terms, the
unify_with_occurs_check/2 can be simulated as follows:

/* simulation */
unify_with_occurs_check2(X, Y) :-
   X = Y, acyclic_term(X).

It also shows that theoretically the problem can be
solved in quasi linear time, since (=)/2 is quasi linear
and acyclic_term/1 is linear.

Now I find that unify_with_occurs_check2/2 and
unify_with_occurs_check/2 do not agree in Trealla
Prolog. For this test case for example:

/* Trealla Prolog 2.83.11 */
/* built-in */
?- S = s(s(A,s(B,A)),1), T = s(s(C,C),1),
   unify_with_occurs_check(S,T).
   S = s(s(s(B,A),s(B,A)),1), A = s(B,A),
   T = s(s(s(B,A),s(B,A)),1), C = s(B,A).

/* simulation */
?- S = s(s(A,s(B,A)),1), T = s(s(C,C),1),
   unify_with_occurs_check2(S,T).
   false.

One can also check with Scryer Prolog it has
also a different result for the pair S and T:

/* Scryer Prolog 0.10.0 */
/* built-in */
?- S = s(s(A,s(B,A)),1), T = s(s(C,C),1),
   unify_with_occurs_check(S,T).
   false.

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Now my post is gone, still nobody knows how
fuzzy testing works in logic programming:

Using SWI-Prolog PLUnit for Fuzzy Testing - Nice to know https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/using-swi-prolog-plunit-for-fuzzy-testing/9220

Instead some bogus claim by EricGT, that
coverage would make it better. I even don't
understand what he wants to say, was this

written by an early Chat GPT-2 ? Is this even English?

The issue emerged when using code coverage (via
library(prolog_coverage)) alongside a comprehensive set of unit tests
(in a *.plt file, also generated by the LLM),
while aiming for 100% code coverage of a knowledge
base built with library(persistency). Without
striving for full coverage, the problem likely
wouldn’t have been detected so quickly. https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/llm-generated-code-with-hallucinated-predicate-options/9391

Code coverage only measures reached code locations,
the typical tools doesn't measure the call value
patterns, of the invoke procedures, the SWI-Prolog

tooling for logic programming isn't any different.
You only see some call counts of the Byrd Box model
ports. Which says practialy not about an example

such as option value [access(readonly)].

Bye

P.S.: Hey EricGT and Boris, why dont you tap into TAP?

Since 2007, the Test and Proof (TAP) conference has
long been a leading venue for research on the
intersection of dynamic analyses, in particular
software testing, and formal verification. https://conf.researchr.org/track/fm-2026/fm-2026-tap

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Information for Boris the Loris, chief grammar
Nazi of SWI-Prolog discourse. Here is a summary
of my No Fuzz(y) declaration for the

Trealla & Co. benchmarking from my previous post:

- No fuzzy logic involved.
  Its all binary.

- No fuzzy testing involved.
  Its all manual testing.

- No fuzz testing involved.
  See above fuzzy testig.

- No fuzzing test involved.
  See above fuzzy testig.

What about the American Fuzzy Lop (AFL),
a free software fuzzer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop_%28software%29

Or was a breed of rabbit, by the
the name American Fuzzy Lop involved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop

No neither of the 2 AFLs were involved.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Now I have the feeling that Trealla implements
the extreme of Jaffar's Unification, to the extend
that it keeps and trails functor linking? Was

studying the source of Trealla . Have also the
impression that it uses a very large native stack.
Is this trailing what gave it the name Trealla,

despite the geographic beach location with such a name ?
BTW: I have new benchmark results (*) = Dogelog:

Test | Java (*) | JavaScript (*) | Python (*) | Scryer | Trealla
-- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
(=)/2 | 184 | 514 | 1750 | 210 | 53
unify_with_occurs_check/2 | 213 | 601 | 2344 | N/A | 53
(==)/2 | 95 | 227 | 1265 | 250 | 65
compare/3 | 86 | 221 | 1328 | 250 | 65
copy_term/2 | 409 | 589 | 2579 | 108 | N/A
term_variables/2 | 168 | 318 | 1469 | 166 | 90
ground/1 | 40 | 120 | 516 | 70 | 121
acyclic_term/1 | 129 | 290 | 1281 | 386 | N/A
numbervars/3 | 170 | 327 | 1516 | 164 | 100

Pitty `copy_term/2` and `acyclic_term/1` do not
yet work with a hydra example.

I am using a hydra variant, which puts less
pressure on the memory, but does benchmark
the built-ins in a loop, so that I see some

numbers. My problem was that Trealla was
below the 1 ms mesurememt:
```
hydra(0, _) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X)) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X).

hydra(0, A, A) :- !.
hydra(N, h(X, X), A) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X, A).

/* Binary Built-ins */
bench :-
    hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
    time((between(1,64,_), X = Y, fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), unify_with_occurs_check(X, Y), fail; true)), >>     time((between(1,64,_), X == Y, fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), compare(_, X, Y), fail; true)), fail; true.

/* Unary Built-ins */
bench2 :-
    hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
    time((between(1,64,_), copy_term(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), term_variables(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), ground(X-Y), fail; true)),
    time((between(1,64,_), acyclic_term(X-Y), fail; true)),
    fail; true.

/* Misc Built-ins */
bench3 :-
    hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
    time((between(1,64,_), numbervars(X-Y,0,_), fail; true)),
    fail; true.
```
Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
   Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
   Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

The lore if there were no abstract interpretation:

"To prove the correctness of a program is to demonstrate,
through impeccable mathematical techniques, that it has
no bugs. To test a program is to run it with the expectation
of discovering bugs. These two paths to software reliability
seem to diverge from the very start: if you have proved your
program correct, it is fruitless to comb it for bugs; and
if you are testing it, that surely must be a sign that you
have given up on any hope to prove its correctness.
Accordingly, proofs and tests have, since the onset of
software engineering research, been pursued by distinct
communities using different kinds of techniques and tools."

But there are verification techniques that work with
abstract interpretation, sometimes confusingly also
called predicate abstraction. Or the requirements and

environment assumptions might be based on simplifications,
the reflecting formally the reality in the wild. In the
end formal methods might not yield the same demonstration

power than one would expect from the above lore. So what
does the TAP conference offer:

Synergistic Techniques and Tools

Combination of model checking, theorem proving,
and runtime verification
Synergies between symbolic execution, fuzzing, and formal analysis
Test-case generation from formal specifications
Using test execution results to guide or automate proof discovery
Static analysis for test-suite reduction,
prioritization, and optimization
Verification-based and property-based testing
Formal methods for testing AI/ML-based systems
AI/ML techniques for enhancing formal verification and testing
Derivation of specifications and contracts from tests
Combination of static and dynamic analysis for
security vulnerability detection

Have Fun!

Bye
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

This wasn't clear to me. That there is a
veritable war going on between Scryer Prolog
and Ciao Prolog. One protagonist

being Markus Triska, famous by the "Power
of Prolog", and the other protagonist Manuel
V. Hermenegildo somehow backed by the

Prolog education group (PEG) and SWI ? So who
will win the war, and exercise world domaninance
in constraint logic programming, based

on bogus notions such as "pure Prolog", which
are inherently inconsistent? The war is
mainly fought over teaching materials distributed,

less over tangible systems and applications.
Currently I would say the clear winner is
Markus Triska with 9 adoptions:

- As of 2018, Norbert Zeh
- As of 2018, Andrej Bauer
- As of 2018, José A. Alonso Jiménez
- As of 2019, Adam Dingle
- As of 2019, Dylan Schwesinger
- As of 2020, Andrea Schwertner Charão
- As of 2020, Alejandro Guerra Hernández
- As of 2021, Ilkka Kokkarinen
- As of 2025, Wang-Zhou Dai
https://github.com/triska/the-power-of-prolog

So it currently stands at 9:0 for Triska
vs Hermenegildo.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
  Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
  Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

I suspect that this war will be as bloody
and useless as the Thirty Years war, that
ravaged Europe. The victimes will be students

that learn useless stuff, because a narrow view
of logic is offered. Not to speak of the
dangerous nonsense of "pure Prolog", adding

an adjective from "logic", i.e. pure to
a thing from "computation", i.e. Prolog. Extensions
such as Liquid Haskell or Tabled Constraints,

are as useless as well. Except if you think
your knowledge and reasoning fits into
generalized facts, as we have already studied

40 years ago based on my own ProQuel:

"Following [KKR90], we call an implication of the
form A <- c_1, & .. & C_n, (n > 0) where A is a
user-defined atom and the ci are atomic constraints
a generalized fact (generalized tuple). In order
to emphasize the special nature of generalized facts,
we will in the following often use the notation
< A | C1, ..., Cn>" https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/entities/publication/43d19c38-122f-43d7-a8df-82e001e55075

Have Fun everybody!

Bye

P.S.: Just make a reality check from modern
AI. How large is a context. Is a context a
generalized fact, or a collection of generalizd
facts? Or maybe something else? What is it?

How long will the generalized facts idea be at the party?

Databases and Higher Types
It maybe of interest that I did not get into this
line of work from the database side. I began with
attempts to treat various classic philosophical problems
as simply as possible in a modal context, work culminating
in [4]. This, in turn, led to an interest in higher
type modal logics, connected with a desire to understand
Godel's ontological argument. My work on this can be found in.
Databases came in, unnoticed, by a side door. But they
are at the party, and it may be they will have a good time https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225181835

But the above is possibly too benevolent, should
be challenged by AI, and especially by generative AI.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

This wasn't clear to me. That there is a
veritable war going on between Scryer Prolog
and Ciao Prolog. One protagonist

being Markus Triska, famous by the "Power
of Prolog", and the other protagonist Manuel
V. Hermenegildo somehow backed by the

Prolog education group (PEG) and SWI ? So who
will win the war, and exercise world domaninance
in constraint logic programming, based

on bogus notions such as "pure Prolog", which
are inherently inconsistent? The war is
mainly fought over teaching materials distributed,

less over tangible systems and applications.
Currently I would say the clear winner is
Markus Triska with 9 adoptions:

- As of 2018, Norbert Zeh
- As of 2018, Andrej Bauer
- As of 2018, José A. Alonso Jiménez
- As of 2019, Adam Dingle
- As of 2019, Dylan Schwesinger
- As of 2020, Andrea Schwertner Charão
- As of 2020, Alejandro Guerra Hernández
- As of 2021, Ilkka Kokkarinen
- As of 2025, Wang-Zhou Dai
https://github.com/triska/the-power-of-prolog

So it currently stands at 9:0 for Triska
vs Hermenegildo.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
   Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
   Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Pitty SWI cannot throw Markus Triska out of
their discourse forum or out of the awful
PIP forum also on discourse. He is not present there.

I am pretty sure they would do it if they
could, they are so desparate. The newest
gimmick in their fight is this pearl of warfare:

Our prototype has been implemented in SWI Prolog,
and we have already tested this early-stage system
with potential clients such as Siemens China and
Shell India. Comparison between Prolog systems as
input for the upcoming conference https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/discussions/3150

LoL, nice try Dutchies. But who believes this
inbreed nonsense. Why not compare with some
industrial strength C++ constraint solver?

And what does Shell India even mean? Historically
it has its roots indeed with the Dutchies:

formerly known as "the Royal Dutch Company for
the Exploitation of Petroleum Wells in
the Dutch East Indies"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_plc

But I suspect its an international company
with head quarters in London. According to
MarketScreener, about 52.95% of Shell is
held by “Institutional” investors.

Geographical Distribution (by Country) of
Major Shareholders. Based on MarketScreener’s
breakdown of the top ~1,000 shareholders:

United States ~23.6%
United Kingdom ~17.5%
Norway ~3.28%
Switzerland ~1.56%
Canada ~1.46%
Germany ~1.06%

According to MarketScreener’s breakdown of
Shell’s top ~1,000 shareholders, India is
not listed explicitly in their “geographical
origin of shareholders” chart.

MarketScreener reports that ~44–45% of
Shell’s shares (within their top-1,000-holder
data set) are “Unknown” — meaning they can’t
clearly map them to a specific
institution or geography.

Because of that, even if some Indian investors
hold Shell shares, they may be lumped into
the “unknown” category if they aren’t among
the largest disclosed institutional holders,
or if their holdings are registered through
nominee accounts / omnibus custodians.

Bye

P.S.: Just be happy to get called Dutchies:

"Be happy they call you Dutchies, usually
we Easter Europeans get called Alocoholics
or thieves around these regions lol" https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/comments/1ehqy3a/calling_us_dutch_people_dutchies/


Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
  Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
  Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

There was this caboom when SWI7 introduced
dicts. But at the same time Markus Triska (Side B)
stopped contributing to SWI (Side A) ?

Side A now stands at a precarious crossroads,
its future hinging on innovations whose success
is far from guaranteed. The irony is striking:
the very battle consuming its attention is fought

over familiar, time-tested techniques,
while the exotic approaches that once promised
differentiation remain unproven. Compounding
the dilemma, one of Side A’s original core

developers—who helped shape its early trajectory—
is now contributing to Side B’s efforts,
carrying insight and experience that subtly
tilt the balance. The technical debt that

arose from earlier choices to diverge from
standard practices or established collaborations
is still manageable, yet it lingers like a
quiet undercurrent, shaping both strategy

and execution. This is a story of ambition and
ingenuity, but also of hubris: of how the
pursuit of the novel and exotic can, paradoxically,
leave an organization vulnerable, even as it bets

on a future that may or may not arrive.
- ChatGPT, 24.11.2025

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Pitty SWI cannot throw Markus Triska out of
their discourse forum or out of the awful
PIP forum also on discourse. He is not present there.

I am pretty sure they would do it if they
could, they are so desparate. The newest
gimmick in their fight is this pearl of warfare:

Our prototype has been implemented in SWI Prolog,
and we have already tested this early-stage system
with potential clients such as Siemens China and
Shell India. Comparison between Prolog systems as
input for the upcoming conference https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/discussions/3150

LoL, nice try Dutchies. But who believes this
inbreed nonsense. Why not compare with some
industrial strength C++ constraint solver?

And what does Shell India even mean? Historically
it has its roots indeed with the Dutchies:

formerly known as "the Royal Dutch Company for
the Exploitation of Petroleum Wells in
the Dutch East Indies"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_plc

But I suspect its an international company
with head quarters in London. According to
MarketScreener, about 52.95% of Shell is
held by “Institutional” investors.

Geographical Distribution (by Country) of
Major Shareholders. Based on MarketScreener’s
breakdown of the top ~1,000 shareholders:

United States    ~23.6%
United Kingdom    ~17.5%
Norway    ~3.28%
Switzerland    ~1.56%
Canada    ~1.46%
Germany    ~1.06%

According to MarketScreener’s breakdown of
Shell’s top ~1,000 shareholders, India is
not listed explicitly in their “geographical
origin of shareholders” chart.

MarketScreener reports that ~44–45% of
Shell’s shares (within their top-1,000-holder
data set) are “Unknown” — meaning they can’t
clearly map them to a specific
institution or geography.

Because of that, even if some Indian investors
hold Shell shares, they may be lumped into
the “unknown” category if they aren’t among
the largest disclosed institutional holders,
or if their holdings are registered through
nominee accounts / omnibus custodians.

Bye

P.S.: Just be happy to get called Dutchies:

"Be happy they call you Dutchies, usually
we Easter Europeans get called Alocoholics
or thieves around these regions lol" https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/comments/1ehqy3a/calling_us_dutch_people_dutchies/

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Who will win the new Prolog race?
SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?

What about resources that really can
code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
now doomed to have professional moron

Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
he will ever become a heavy committer to
SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should

also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
gut feeling at the moment:

- SWI-Prolog:
   Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed

- Scryer Prolog:
   Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed

In the past I would measure active committers.
But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
system could be indeed Pull Requests.

So who will win?

P.S.: Data sources:

https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Simple test case, indirect permutation:

/* SWI-Tinker 32 bits, version 9.3.35 */
% 127,767,777 inferences, 4.456 CPU in 4.456 seconds
(100% CPU, 28673199 Lips)
true.

Ok a bit slower, but no WASM, only JavaScript!

/* Dogelog Player 2.1.4 for JavaScript */
% Zeit 4705 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 10386607

TinyCLP is written in 100% Prolog, LoL.

Bye

P.S.: I can also beat it on 64-bit:

/* SWI-Prolog threaded, 64 bits, version 9.3.35 */
?- time(test).
% 127,670,227 inferences, 2.031 CPU in 2.042 seconds
(99% CPU, 62853035 Lips)
true.

/* Dogelog Player 2.1.4 for Java */
?- time(test).
% Zeit 1567 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 31186335
true.

P.S.: This was the test case:

:- use_module(library(clpfd)).

test :-
length(L, 9),
L ins 1..9,
all_different(L),
label(L),
fail.
test.

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

There was this caboom when SWI7 introduced
dicts. But at the same time Markus Triska (Side B)
stopped contributing to SWI (Side A) ?

Side A now stands at a precarious crossroads,
its future hinging on innovations whose success
is far from guaranteed. The irony is striking:
the very battle consuming its attention is fought

over familiar, time-tested techniques,
while the exotic approaches that once promised
differentiation remain unproven. Compounding
the dilemma, one of Side A’s original core

developers—who helped shape its early trajectory—
is now contributing to Side B’s efforts,
carrying insight and experience that subtly
tilt the balance. The technical debt that

arose from earlier choices to diverge from
standard practices or established collaborations
is still manageable, yet it lingers like a
quiet undercurrent, shaping both strategy

and execution. This is a story of ambition and
ingenuity, but also of hubris: of how the
pursuit of the novel and exotic can, paradoxically,
leave an organization vulnerable, even as it bets

on a future that may or may not arrive.
- ChatGPT, 24.11.2025

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2