constant caching test case / Prolog orthodoxification (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon)

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!