[HN Gopher] Why Logtalk?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Why Logtalk?
        
       Author : Tomte
       Score  : 103 points
       Date   : 2022-12-11 10:53 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (logtalk.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (logtalk.org)
        
       | kamaal wrote:
       | Stuff like this is always fascinating to me since I read 'The
       | Reasoned Schemer' and worked my way through Clojure core.logic.
       | 
       | So as I understand this leverages and extends Prolog, and yet it
       | is very dry on showing your average programmer how they could use
       | this to solve their real world every day problems. If such a
       | segment of user being the intended audience here at all?
       | 
       | Either way resources to learn something like this to do something
       | useful are welcome. Can somebody who is more familiar with the
       | ecosystem give some pointers?
        
         | rad_gruchalski wrote:
         | One reason could be having oop-style objects available in
         | Prolog. Prolog modules are global, they're like a singleton, or
         | like s bunch of namespaced functions. Once you import a module,
         | it is like a singleton. Prolog doesn't have anything what could
         | store a state of a module so functions inside of a module can
         | operate on some common state. One way would be to use a global
         | database but that's really discouraged because of performance
         | impact it can have.
         | 
         | Modules being a Prolog construct can be basically created at
         | runtime. So if you need multiple _instances_ , you could create
         | and load multiple modules at runtime. But that's pretty verbose
         | and quite a bit of work.
         | 
         | Logtalk gives you this out of the box using your standard
         | Prolog.
        
           | harperlee wrote:
           | I think one of the use cases for lambda-prolog (a prolog for
           | higher-level logic instead of first-level logic) was the
           | ability to implement modules in a logical-native way.
        
       | infradig wrote:
       | Logtalk is an impressive piece of work. Development of Trealla
       | Prolog would not have gotten to where it is without the impetus
       | to support Logtalk and the feedback from Paulo.
        
       | mangecoeur wrote:
       | why indeed
        
       | dsabanin wrote:
       | As someone who've tried to use Logtalk for real project, my
       | impression is that it's extremely verbose and feels like an
       | attempt to create C++ or Mozart/Oz on top of Prolog.
       | Unfortunately, I believe that doing this without introducing
       | extra syntax, you end up with a lot of boilerplate in a language
       | like Prolog without any decent tooling to help you handle it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-12 23:01 UTC)