Comparison of Prolog implementations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The following Comparison of Prolog implementations provides a reference for the relative feature sets and performance of different implementations of the Prolog computer programming language.

Portability[edit]

There are Prolog implementations that are radically different, with different syntax and different semantics (e.g. Visual Prolog)[1] and sub-communities have developed around different implementations.[1]

Code that strictly conforms to the ISO-Prolog core language is portable across ISO-compliant implementations. However, the ISO standard for modules was never accepted by most Prolog implementors.[1]

Factors that can adversely affect portability include: use of bounded vs. unbounded integer arithmetic, additional types such as string objects, advanced numeric types (rationals, complex), feature extensions such as Unicode, threads, and tabling.[2] Use of libraries unavailable in other implementations and library organisation:[1]

Currently, the way predicates are spread over the libraries and system built-ins differs enormously. [...] Fortunately, there are only few cases where we find predicates with the same name but different semantics (e.g. delete/3)

Main features[edit]

Platform Features Toolkit Prolog Mechanics
Name OS Licence Native Graphics Compiled Code Unicode Object Oriented Native OS Control Stand Alone Executable C Interface[3] Java Interface[3] Interactive Interpreter Debugger Code Profiler Syntax
BProlog Unix, Windows, Mac OS X Free for non-commercial uses Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog, plus event-handling, CLP(FD), and tabling
JIProlog JVM, Android Shareware/Commercial and AGPL Yes Yes Yes via Java Yes Yes via Java Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog
Ciao Unix, Windows, Mac OS X GPL, LGPL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog, plus extensions
DOS-PROLOG MS-DOS Shareware Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Edinburgh Prolog
ECLiPSe Linux, Windows, Solaris, Mac OS X MPL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Extended Prolog, Multi-dialect, including ISO
GNU Prolog Unix, Windows, Mac OS X GPL, LGPL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog
Jekejeke Prolog JVM, Android Distribution Evaluation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog, Java API
JLog JVM GPL Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog
JScriptLog Web Browser GPL Yes ISO-Prolog
jTrolog JVM LGPL Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog tests
LPA-PROLOG Windows Commercial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Edinburgh Prolog with extensions
Open Prolog Mac OS Freeware Yes
Poplog Prolog Linux (32- and 64-bit), Unix, Windows Free Open Source Only through POP-11, on Linux Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Edinburgh Prolog, with interfaces to Poplog Common Lisp and Pop-11
SICStus Prolog Unix, Linux, Windows, Mac OS X Commercial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog
Strawberry Prolog Windows, Unix Freeware, Commercial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Not ISO-Prolog + extensions
SWI-Prolog Unix, Linux, Windows, Mac OS X BSD License Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog, Edinburgh Prolog
tuProlog JVM, Android LGPL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog
Visual Prolog Windows Freeware, Commercial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
XSB Prolog Linux, Windows, Solaris, Mac OS X LGPL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog, tabled WFS
YAP-Prolog Linux, Windows, Solaris, Mac OS X, HP-UX GPL or Artistic (user choice) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Edinburgh, ISO-Prolog, Quintus and SICStus Prolog compatible

Operating system and Web-related features[edit]

Web-related
Name Conditional compilation Sockets Multi-threading Tabling HTTP client HTTP server HTML Parser RDF Triple store
BProlog Yes
Ciao Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
ECLiPSe Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
GNU Prolog Yes
Jekejeke Prolog Yes Yes Yes Yes
LPA-Prolog Yes Yes Yes Yes
SICStus Prolog Yes Yes Yes
SWI-Prolog Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Visual Prolog Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
XSB Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
YAP-Prolog Yes Yes Yes Yes

Static analysis[edit]

Name Type checker Determinacy checker Call-pattern checker
Ciao Yes Yes Yes
GNU Prolog
Jekejeke Prolog
SICStus Prolog Yes
SWI-Prolog Yes
Visual Prolog Yes Yes Yes
XSB
YAP-Prolog

Optimizations[edit]

Name Tail-Call Optimization Choice Point Elimination Environment Trimming Just-in-Time Indexing
Ciao Yes Yes Yes  ?
ECLiPSe Yes Yes Yes multi-argument (compile time)
GNU Prolog Yes Yes Yes  ?
Jekejeke Prolog Yes (runtime) Yes (runtime) Yes (runtime) Yes
SICStus Prolog Yes Yes Yes
SWI-Prolog Yes Yes Yes Yes
Visual Prolog Yes (compile time) Yes (compile time) N/A N/A (compile time)
XSB Yes Yes Yes  ?
YAP-Prolog Yes Yes Yes Yes

Release[edit]

Name Version Date
BProlog 8.1 2014-02-23
JIProlog 4.1.5.1 2016-08-06
Ciao 1.14.2 2011-08-15
DOS-PROLOG 6.0
ECLiPSe 6.1_226 2017-02-24
GNU Prolog 1.4.4 2013-04-122
Jekejeke Prolog 1.2.2 2017-06-26
JLog 1.3.6 2007-09-13
JScriptLog 0.7.5 beta 2007-09-10
jTrolog
LPA-PROLOG 6.0
Open Prolog
Poplog Prolog V15.65 2015-10-14
SICStus Prolog 4.3.5 2016-12-08
Strawberry Prolog 3.0 Beta 4 2013-12-10
SWI-Prolog 7.6.1 2017-11-05
tuProlog 3.2.1 2017-02-14
Visual Prolog 7.5, Build 7502 2015-11-05
XSB Prolog 3.8 2017-10-29
YAProlog 6.2.2 2010-10-28

Benchmarks[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d Wielemaker, J.; Costa, V. T. S. (2011). "On the Portability of Prolog Applications". Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 6539. p. 69. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18378-2_8. ISBN 978-3-642-18377-5. 
  2. ^ Jan Wielemaker and Vıtor Santos Costa: Portability of Prolog programs: theory and case-studies. CICLOPS-WLPE Workshop 2010.
  3. ^ a b C/Java interface can also be used for graphics and OS control.
  4. ^ B. Demoen, and P. Nguyen, About unnecessary performance differences between Prolog implementations, Proceedings of the Colloquium on Implementation of Constraint and Logic Programming Systems (CICLOPS 2001)
  5. ^ Bothe, K. (1990). "A prolog space benchmark suite". ACM SIGPLAN Notices. 25 (12): 54–60. doi:10.1145/122193.122197. 
  6. ^ A Summary of XSB Performance (1993)
  7. ^ Demoen, B.; Nguyen, P. L.; Vandeginste, R. (2002). "Copying Garbage Collection for the WAM: to Mark or Not to Mark?". 2401: 194. doi:10.1007/3-540-45619-8_14. 

External links[edit]