Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14154

Re: The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?)

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Back to comp.lang.prolog | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Holy Grail makes People Disappear [like Robert Staerk, now Ulrich Neumerkel?] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 18:13 +0200
  Alan Kay's Dynabook fueled by Prolog? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 18:20 +0200
    ZebralLogic for evaluating LLMs (Was: Alan Kay's Dynabook fueled by Prolog?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 18:24 +0200
  Re: Holy Grail makes People Disappear [like Robert Staerk, now Ulrich Neumerkel?] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 19:21 +0200
    Biene Maya (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 22:26 +0200
      A Challenge for Fixpoint Lovers (Was: Biene Maya) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-02 08:03 +0200
  Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-09 14:42 +0200
    Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 12:25 +0200
      Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 12:59 +0200
        Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:03 +0200
          Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:14 +0200
            Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:19 +0200
              Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:32 +0200
                Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:41 +0200
                Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:46 +0200
    The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-11 11:03 +0200
      Re: The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-11 11:05 +0200
        Re: The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-11 11:19 +0200
          Re: The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-11 14:03 +0200
    How Scryer Prolog became the disgrace of Computer Science (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-13 15:48 +0200
      Re: How Scryer Prolog became the disgrace of Computer Science (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-13 15:49 +0200
  Re: Holy Grail makes People Disappear [like Robert Staerk, now Ulrich Neumerkel?] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-13 09:08 +0200

csiph-web