• # Prolog

    Posté par  . Évalué à 2.

    Pour ceux qui se disent que ça ressemble beaucoup à Prolog, voici ce que dit la doc de Picat :

    The support of explicit unification, explicit non-determinism, tabling, and constraints makes
    Picat more suitable than functional and scripting languages for symbolic computations.
    Picat is arguably more expressive than Prolog for scripting and modeling. With arrays, loops, and list and
    array comprehensions, it is not rare to find problems for which Picat requires an order of magnitude fewer lines of code to describe than Prolog.
    Picat is more scalable than Prolog. The use of pattern-matching rather than unification facilitates indexing of rules.
    Picat is also more reliable than Prolog. In addition to explicit non-determinism, explicit unification, and a simple static module system, the lack of cuts, dynamic predicates, and operator overloading also improves the reliability of the language.
    Picat is not as powerful as Prolog for metaprogramming and it’s impossible to write a meta-interpreter for Picat in Picat itself. Nevertheless, this weakness can be remedied with library modules for implementing domain-specific languages.
    The Picat implementation is based on the B-Prolog engine.

  • # Impressionnant

    Posté par  . Évalué à 3.

    Je te suis pas un habitué de la programmation logique et j'ai du mal à imaginer des usages de prolog ailleurs que là où on me les montre. Mais je trouve picat plus "par contraintes" plus facile d'accès et je suis curieux de ce qu'il pourrait donner sur des problèmes de l'advent of code.

    https://linuxfr.org/users/barmic/journaux/y-en-a-marre-de-ce-gros-troll

Suivre le flux des commentaires

Note : les commentaires appartiennent à celles et ceux qui les ont postés. Nous n’en sommes pas responsables.