> Thinking in Prolog is much easier than knowing how to solve a problem beforehand. In Prolog you just state
> the facts and known rules, but you have no clear idea what would be the best way to solve it.
>
Prolog is a programming language that takes a unique approach to problem-solving due to its declarative
nature. While this can simplify certain aspects, it is important to have a solid understanding of the problem
you are trying to solve and how to properly organize the facts and rules. Even though Prolog can abstract
some of the implementation details away, having a well-thought-out plan and strategy is still necessary to
effectively use the language.
>
> No intelligence needed.
>
Although Prolog might make some tasks appear more straightforward, it is important to remember that
intelligence and a comprehensive understanding of logic programming are still required to efficiently create
and maintain solutions within the language.
>
> A "dumb" friend of mine in the 80s only used Prolog for his work and was very happy with it. Lisp, Pascal or C
> was too hard for him.
>
I may be the "dumb" friend you referred to?
Consider this: someone skilled in producing valuable software using Prolog is likely knowledgeable and
proficient enough to program professionally in various other languages, such as C, Lisp, C#, C++, Scala, Java,
Pascal, Python, Assembly, and more.
As an experienced programmer with a strong background in multiple languages, I often receive requests to
translate my Prolog software into languages like Python, Java, or C#. However, I usually decline and claim
that "it would be too hard"
Had these tasks not been so daunting, others would have already implemented solutions to them in
different languages, and there would be no need for people to continually request my assistance!
>
> The problem with Prolog is mostly that you'll throw too hard problems at it, mostly with exponential complexity.
>
Prolog is not inherently more susceptible to problems with exponential complexity than other programming
languages. The complexity of a problem depends on the specific problem being addressed and how the facts
and rules are organized within the Prolog code. To optimize Prolog code, it is essential to have a deep
understanding of the problem domain and to structure the code in a way that minimizes complexity.
>
> Tiny changes have huge influences then, it either works or not.
>
It is true that small changes in a program can sometimes have a significant impact on its behavior. This is
not a characteristic unique to Prolog; it can happen in any programming language if the underlying logic is
not well-designed or properly tested. It is the responsibility of the developer to understand the problem domain
and design the logic in such a way that it avoids unintended consequences, regardless of the programming
language used.
>
> Also the tabling and SAT/SMT integration sucks.
>
Tabling is a technique in Prolog that stores intermediate results of a computation to prevent redundant
sub-computations, thereby improving the efficiency of certain types of queries. Although it may have some
limitations, tabling is generally considered a valuable feature of Prolog that can enhance performance for
specific types of problems.
Prolog's integration with SAT (Boolean Satisfiability) and SMT (Satisfiability Modulo Theories) solvers is
not inherently flawed. Prolog can be used effectively in combination with these solvers to tackle complex
problems in various domains. Integrating Prolog with these solvers might require a good understanding of
the solver's functionality and the problem domain, but the same can be said for integrating any other programming
language with these solvers. It's important to leverage the latest Prolog tools and libraries to optimize these
aspects of your program.
> the facts and known rules, but you have no clear idea what would be the best way to solve it.
>
Prolog is a programming language that takes a unique approach to problem-solving due to its declarative nature. While this can simplify certain aspects, it is important to have a solid understanding of the problem you are trying to solve and how to properly organize the facts and rules. Even though Prolog can abstract some of the implementation details away, having a well-thought-out plan and strategy is still necessary to effectively use the language.
>
> No intelligence needed.
>
Although Prolog might make some tasks appear more straightforward, it is important to remember that intelligence and a comprehensive understanding of logic programming are still required to efficiently create and maintain solutions within the language.
>
> A "dumb" friend of mine in the 80s only used Prolog for his work and was very happy with it. Lisp, Pascal or C
> was too hard for him.
>
I may be the "dumb" friend you referred to?
Consider this: someone skilled in producing valuable software using Prolog is likely knowledgeable and proficient enough to program professionally in various other languages, such as C, Lisp, C#, C++, Scala, Java, Pascal, Python, Assembly, and more.
As an experienced programmer with a strong background in multiple languages, I often receive requests to translate my Prolog software into languages like Python, Java, or C#. However, I usually decline and claim that "it would be too hard" Had these tasks not been so daunting, others would have already implemented solutions to them in different languages, and there would be no need for people to continually request my assistance!
>
> The problem with Prolog is mostly that you'll throw too hard problems at it, mostly with exponential complexity.
>
Prolog is not inherently more susceptible to problems with exponential complexity than other programming languages. The complexity of a problem depends on the specific problem being addressed and how the facts and rules are organized within the Prolog code. To optimize Prolog code, it is essential to have a deep understanding of the problem domain and to structure the code in a way that minimizes complexity.
>
> Tiny changes have huge influences then, it either works or not.
>
It is true that small changes in a program can sometimes have a significant impact on its behavior. This is not a characteristic unique to Prolog; it can happen in any programming language if the underlying logic is not well-designed or properly tested. It is the responsibility of the developer to understand the problem domain and design the logic in such a way that it avoids unintended consequences, regardless of the programming language used.
>
> Also the tabling and SAT/SMT integration sucks.
>
Tabling is a technique in Prolog that stores intermediate results of a computation to prevent redundant sub-computations, thereby improving the efficiency of certain types of queries. Although it may have some limitations, tabling is generally considered a valuable feature of Prolog that can enhance performance for specific types of problems.
Prolog's integration with SAT (Boolean Satisfiability) and SMT (Satisfiability Modulo Theories) solvers is not inherently flawed. Prolog can be used effectively in combination with these solvers to tackle complex problems in various domains. Integrating Prolog with these solvers might require a good understanding of the solver's functionality and the problem domain, but the same can be said for integrating any other programming language with these solvers. It's important to leverage the latest Prolog tools and libraries to optimize these aspects of your program.