Liste des Groupes | Revenir à l prolog |
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.