Comparison of Prolog implementations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] Feature comparison

Platform Features Toolkit Prolog Mechanics
Name OS Licence Native Graphics Compiled Code Unicode Object Oriented Native OS Control Stand Alone Executable C Interface[1] Java Interface[1] Interactive Interpreter Debugger Code Profiler Syntax
DOS-PROLOG MS-DOS Shareware Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Edinburgh Prolog
Open Prolog Mac OS Freeware Yes
BProlog Unix, Windows, Mac OS X Free for academic uses Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog, plus event-handling, CLP(FD), and tabling
Ciao Prolog Unix, Windows, Mac OS X GPL,LGPL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog, plus extensions
GNU Prolog Unix, Windows, Mac OS X GPL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog
Visual Prolog Windows Freeware, Commercial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
SWI-Prolog Unix, Windows, Mac OS X LGPL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog, Edinburgh Prolog
tuProlog JVM LGPL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog
Strawberry Prolog Windows, Unix Freeware, Commercial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO-Prolog with extensions
LPA-Prolog Windows Commercial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Edinburgh Prolog with extensions
YAP-Prolog

[edit] Benchmarks

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b C/Java interface can also be used for graphics and OS control.
  2. ^ 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)
  3. ^ doi:10.1145/122193.122197
  4. ^ A Summary of XSB Performance (1993)[1]
  5. ^ doi:10.1007/3-540-45619-8_14