Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.swapon.de!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: constant caching test case / Prolog orthodoxification (Was: Prolog
 missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 01:06:28 +0200
Message-ID: <103cmll$16ih4$1@solani.org>
References: <1034bs9$1364p$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 23:06:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="1264164"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.21
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rE/c64NwScCKrgxRjHcg9lzBzC4=
X-User-ID: eJwNyckBwCAMA7CVEnIyDph4/xFafRWWmijPSA8Gb9uRdKkHBIEzRskG4DqLZ6+l3dVDpRz5a5Qz0rrr3bAPbDIV7Q==
In-Reply-To: <1034bs9$1364p$1@solani.org>

Hi,

Now SWI-Prolog has amassed 1/4 Million of
student notebooks, the SWI-Prolog discourse
has become a cest pool of stupid teachers

asking stupid questions. Development and
innovation in Prolog has totally stalled.
All Prolog systems are based on completely

silly WAM or ZIP, and cannot run this trivial
constant caching test case in linear time:

data(1,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
data(2,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
data(3,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).

test(N) :- between(1,1000000,_), data(N, _), fail; true.

Here some results:

/* Trealla Prolog 2.74.10 */

?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
% Time elapsed 0.236s, 3000004 Inferences, 12.692 MLips
% Time elapsed 0.318s, 3000004 Inferences, 9.429 MLips
% Time elapsed 0.371s, 3000004 Inferences, 8.095 MLips

/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-411 */

?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
    % CPU time: 0.793s, 7_000_100 inferences
    % CPU time: 1.150s, 7_000_100 inferences
    % CPU time: 1.481s, 7_000_100 inferences

Guess what formerly Jekejeke Prolog and Dogelog
Player show? They are not based on WAM or ZIP.
Its rather DAM, Dogelog Abtract Machine.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
> 
>  > don’t think it could really do
>  > the “ghost text” effect.
> 
> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
> 
> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
> 
>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
> 
> Well you don’t use it for your primary
> typing completion which is preferably fast.
> The first response might give context information,
> for the second request which provides a
> different type of completion.
> 
> But the first response is not responsible
> for any timing towards the second request.
> That anyway happens in the client. And it
> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
> from a stupid channel.
> 
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!