Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Re: The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure
 measurable?)
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:05:48 +0200
Message-ID: <v99utc$12eip$2@solani.org>
References: <v8gc6e$l44p$1@solani.org> <v952rb$10h3e$1@solani.org>
 <v99uo8$12eip$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 09:05:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="1129049"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r0MrOCHf6vTi3VcLH5B6HPxLE8k=
X-User-ID: eJwNyMEBwCAIA8CVGgkg42gD+4/Q3vPcAvEmw4M+Ps/a/3D3lFkj3USu1QUvoYeU3SdTWXmojbGrwg3MkdI/JP0U5A==
In-Reply-To: <v99uo8$12eip$1@solani.org>
Bytes: 3265
Lines: 66


But I am nevertheless convinced Scryer Prolog
is dead. These good genes only appeared recently.
But I was comparing oranges and apples.

I compared Dogelog Player which has garbage
collection to a Prolog system like Scryer Prolog
which doesn't have garbage collection.

A Prolog system that doesn't have garbage collection
can run faster. The challenge is a runtime engine
that is fast AND has garbage collection.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> But Scryer Prolog must nevertheless have somewhere
> some good genes. Even it posted about a Prolog compiler
> written in Prolog itself. Lets make some reality check:
> 
> /* Ichiban Prolog */
> real    0m39.635s
> user    0m59.684s
> sys     0m7.891s
> 
> /* Dogelog Player for Java */
> ?- time((between(1,6001,_), nrev, fail; true)).
> % Zeit 588 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 5113263, Uhr 11.08.2024 10:47
> true.
> 
> /* Trealla Prolog */
> ?- time((between(1,6001,_), nrev, fail; true)).
> % Time elapsed 0.549s, 3000503 Inferences, 5.468 MLips
>     true.
> 
> /* Scryer Prolog */
> ?- time((between(1,6001,_), nrev, fail; true)).
>     % CPU time: 0.302s, 3_024_526 inferences
>     true.
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog */
> ?- time((between(1,6001,_), nrev, fail; true)).
> % 2,994,499 inferences, 0.078 CPU in 0.089 seconds (88% CPU, 38329587 Lips)
> true.
> 
> Dogelog Player has a Prolog compiler written in
> Prolog itself. But the limiting factor is of course
> always the runtime engine itself, that executes the
> 
> compiled code. You can inline and optimize whatever
> you want, if the runtime engine, its architecture,
> has some limitations performance wise, you won't
> 
> see aby speed. I don't know yet whether I will beat
> SWI-Prolog in this test case ever in the near future?
> Especially with some cheap effort?
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> Just look at GitHub issues and sort by "recent update".
>> I get for the last week the following figures:
>>
>> - New tickets: 7 new tickets
>> - Closed tickets: 2 closed tickets
>>
>> To get a turn around you the the 2nd number bigger
>> that the 1st number, and not the other way around.