Comment by z5h

> What is some of your most hard-earned knowledge?

1. If you find yourself straying too often from coding in relations, and instead coding in instructive steps, you're going to end up with problems.

2. Use DCGs to create a DSL for any high level operations performed on data structures. The bi-directionality of Prolog's clauses means you can use this DSL to generate an audit trail of "commands executed" when Prolog solves a problem for you, but you can also use the audit trail and modify it to execute those commands on other data.

So first, let's keep in mind that with no execution model, Prolog is still a "syntax" for Horn clauses. It's still a way to document knowledge. Add SLD resolution and we can compute. The paper (intentionally I presume) orders clauses of a simple predicate to illustrate (cause) a problem in Prolog.

But what I actually find is the more time spent in Prolog, the more natural it is to express things in a way that is clear, logical and performant. As with any language/paradigm, there are a few gotchas to be experienced. But generally speaking, SLD resolution has never once been an obstacle (in the past 2 years) of coding.

The general execution model of Prolog is pretty simple. The lack of functions actually makes meta-programming much clearer and simpler. A term is just data, unless it's stated as a goal. It's only a valid goal if you've already defined its meaning.

So I'd be concerned that Curry gives up the simplicity of Prolog's execution model, and ease of meta-programming. I struggle with the lack of types in Prolog, but also know I can (at least in theory) use Prolog to solve correctness problems in Prolog code.

I'm currently using SWI-Prolog. Performance is excellent, it has excellent high-level concurrency primitives[0] (when was the last time you pegged all your cores solving a problem?), and many libraries. I might be one of the few people who has committed to using the integrated editor (PceEmacs) despite being a Vim person. PceEmacs is just too good at syntax highlighting and error detection.

At the same time, I'm a huge fan of Markus Triska. His Youtube[1] stuff is mind-expanding (watch all of it, even if you never write Prolog). He has an excellent book online[2]. I admire the way he explains and advances pure monotonic Prolog, and I appreciate the push for ISO conformance and his support for Prologs that that do the same (SWI is not on that list).

If you want to learn Prolog, watch all of Markus Triska's videos, read his book, and learn what Prolog could be in a perfect world. Then download SWI-Prolog, and maybe break some rules while getting things done at a blazing speed. Eventually you'll gravitate to what makes sense for you.

The Art of Prolog is a classic "must have". Clause and Effect is a good "hit the ground running" (on page 70 you're into symbolic differentiation via term rewriting).

0 https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=thread

1 https://www.youtube.com/@ThePowerOfProlog

2 https://www.metalevel.at/prolog

You are not crazy. Logic programming is the future

COT = Chain-of-Thought

https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

You’re in good company — the most influential AI academic of all time, the cooky grandfather of AI who picked up right where (when!) Turing left off, the man hated by both camps yet somehow in charge of them, agrees with you. I’m talking about Marvin Minsky, of course. See: Logical vs. Analogical (Minsky, 1991) https://ojs.aaai.org/aimagazine/index.php/aimagazine/article...

  …the limitations of current machine intelligence largely stem from seeking unified theories or trying to repair the deficiencies of theoretically neat but conceptually impoverished ideological positions. 
  Our purely numeric connectionist networks are inherently deficient in abilities to reason well; our purely symbolic logical systems are inherently deficient in abilities to represent the all-important heuristic connections between things—the uncertain, approximate, and analogical links that we need for making new hypotheses. The versatility that we need can be found only in larger-scale architectures that can exploit and manage the advantages of several types of representations at the same time.
  Then, each can be used to overcome the deficiencies of the others. To accomplish this task, each formally neat type of knowledge representation or inference must be complemented with some scruffier kind of machinery that can embody the heuristic connections between the knowledge itself and what we hope to do with it.

He phrases it backwards here in comparison to what you’re talking about (probably because no one in their right mind would have predicted the feasibility of LLMs), but I think the parallel argument should be clear. Talking about “human reasoning” like Simon & Newell or LeCun & Hinton do in terms of one single paradigm is like talking about “human neurons”. There’s tons of different neuronal architectures at play in our brains, and only through the ad-hoc minimally-centralized combination of all of them do we find success.

Personally, I’m a big booster of the term Unified Artificial Intelligence (UAI) for this paradigm; isn’t it fetch? ;)

As someone that went through a degree where Prolog and LP was cherisched, I would say yes, however LP might be even weirder to start into than even FP.

Many folks on our degree couldn't be happier when they didn't had to see Prolog ever again, while me and others went on to take our chances on the national LP challenge across universities.

Tarski's World was a good way back then to dive into what LP is all about, without being programming language specific.

https://www.gradegrinder.net/Products/tw-index.html

I'm surprised at how readable Prolog is.

I've played with and seriously used many languages in my career. My experience is that pure functional (done Elm style) is productive and scales well to a larger team. Dynamic stuff like Ruby/Javascript always has more bugs than you think, even with "full" test coverage. I'm not smart enough to make sense of my own Scheme meta-programming when I revisit it months later. I have loads (but dated) experience with Java and it (and peers) are relatively easy to read and maintain.

Prolog is very surprising, because it is homoiconic and immensely powerful in metaprogramming, BUT ... the declarative style and execution model reigns in the complexity/readability. A term is just a term. Nothing happens when you create a term. If/when a term is a goal, then you match it with the head of an existing predicate (something you've already coded). So it never gets too messy. Now, the biggest problem with Prolog is that it's so flexible, you'll perpetually be realizing that you could have coded something much more cleanly. So you do that, have less, code, it's nicer, etc. Doing this on a large team might not scale without effort.

I found it completely impenetrable in college for all but the simplest problems and I tried to re-read the textbook recently and I didn’t do much better.

Prolog (and logic programming in general) is much older than you think. In fact, if we take modern functional programming to have been born with John Backus' Turing Award presentation[1], then it even predates it.

Many advancements to functional programming were implemented on top of Prolog! Erlang's early versions were built on top of a Prolog-derived language who's name escapes me. It's the source of Erlang's unfamiliar syntax for more unlearned programmers. It's very much like writing Prolog if you had return values and no cuts or complex terms.

As for penetrating general use, probably not without a major shift in the industry. But it's a very popular language just on the periphery, even to this day.

[1] - https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/359576.359579

"Prolog" is like Lisp, a wide array of superficially similar languages that actually are quite diverse.

Mind you, in that sense, Java and C# are more or less the same language, which has Prolog programmers nodding their heads and Java and C# developers screaming.

It's not meant to be taken literally, it refers to any language of logic programming”. Apologies to Monty Python.

Probably because neither of them have much in the way or library or community support.