A Comparative Exploration of Concurrent Logic Languages

G. A. Ringwood; G. A. Ringwood

doi:10.1017/S0269888900005130

1989 Volume 4

Article Contents

Next Previous

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

A Comparative Exploration of Concurrent Logic Languages

G. A. Ringwood

More Information

Published online: 07 July 2009
The Knowledge Engineering Review 4, Article number: 10.1017/S0269888900005130 (1989) | Cite this article

Abstract

Abstract: The execution model of Prolog, the first popular language based on Horn Clauses, was designed for efficient evaluation on von Neumann architectures. An alternative process model of execution, better suited for parallel evaluation and reactive programming, has given rise to a new class of languages based on Horn Clause logic, concurrent logic languages. There appears to be a profusion of languages which claim to fall into this class and it is difficult for an initiate to appreciate why each is the way it is. One notable member of this class, FGHC, forms the cornerstone of the Japanese 5th Generation Initiative. Fortunately, the seemingly exponential growth in these languages is only an illusion. A finite number of synchronization mechanisms arise from attempting (or sometimes not attempting) to control two principle synchronization difficulties: the premature binding problem and the binding conflict problem. Suitable combinations of these synchronization mechanisms reproduce the languages of this family. A background knowledge of Prolog is assumed and some familiarity with the difficulties encountered in concurrency would be advantageous.
Rights and permissions
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 19891989Cambridge University Press

References

Burt A and Ringwood GA, 1988. “The Binding Conflict Problem in Concurrent Logic Languages” submitted IJPP

Google Scholar

Brachman RJ and Levesque HJ, 1984. “The Tractability of Subsumption in Frame-based Description Languages” In: Proc. National Conf on AI, pp 34–37

Google Scholar

Carriero N and Gelerntner D, 1989. “Linda in Context” CACM32 pp 444–458

Google Scholar

Clark KL and Gregory S, 1986. “Parlog: Parallel Programming in Logic” ACM TOPLAS8(1) pp 1–49

Google Scholar

Dikstra EW, 1976. A Discipline of Programming, New York: Prentice Hall

Google Scholar

Fuchi K and Furukawa K, 1986. “The Role of Logic Programming in the Fifth Generation Computer Project, Proc. Third Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, July 14–18, 1986, London: Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 1–24.

Google Scholar

Harel A and Pnueli A, 1985. “On the Development of Reactive Systems” In: Apt KR, ed., Logics and models of Concurrent Systems, New York: Springer Verlag

Google Scholar

Hirata M, 1985. “Self-description of Oc and its Applications” (in Japanese). Proc 2nd National Conference of Japan Society of Software Science and Technology, pp 153–156

Google Scholar

Hoare CAR, 1985. Communicating Sequential Processes, New York: Prentice Hall

Google Scholar

Huntbach M, 1988. “Parlog as a Language for Artificial Intelligence” TR, Dept Computing, Imperial College

Google Scholar

Inmos Ltd, 1984. Occam Programming Manual, New York: Prentice Hall

Google Scholar

Lassez JL, Maher MJ and Marriott K, 1988. “Unification Revisited” In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Palo Alto, Morgan Kaufmann

Google Scholar

Maher MJ, 1987. “Logic Semantics for a Class of Committed Choice Programs” In 4th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming,Cambridge Mass,MIT Press

Google Scholar

Ringwood GA, 1987a. “Pattern-Directed, Markovian, Linear Guarded, Definite Clause Resolution” submitted JLP but rejected after the unreasonably long time of 21 months.

Google Scholar

Ringwood GA, 1987b. “Predicates and Pixels” to be published New Generation Computing 7, 1989

Google Scholar

Ringwood GA, 1988a. “Parlog 86 and the Dining Logicians” CACM31 pp 10–25

Google Scholar

Ringwood GA, 1988b. “Meta Logic Machines: A Retrospective Rationale for the Japanese Fifth Generation” Knowledge Engineering Review3, 303–320

Google Scholar

Robinson JA, 1965. “A Machine-oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle” JACM12 pp 23–41

Google Scholar

Saraswat VA, 1986. “Problems with Concurrent Prolog” Tech Rep 86–100, Carnegie Mellon University

Google Scholar

Saraswat VA, 1987a. “The Concurrent Logic Programming Language CP: Definition and Operational Semantics” Proc. of SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, New York, ACM, pp. 49–63

Google Scholar

Saraswat VA, 1987b. “Merging Many Streams Efficiently: The importance of atomic commitment” In Concurrent Prolog: Collected Papers, MIT, vol. 1, pp. 421–445

Google Scholar

Saraswat VA, 1987c. “GHC: Operational Semantics, Problems and Relationship with CP” In IEEE Int. Symp. on Logic Programming, San Francisco, pp. 347–358.

Google Scholar

Saraswat VA, 1989. “Concurrent Constraint Programming Languages” PhD thesis, Carnegie-Mellon University

Google Scholar

Shapiro EY, 1986. “Concurrent Prolog: a Progress Report” IEEE Computer, pp 44–58

Google Scholar

Shapiro EY (ed.), 1987. Concurrent Prolog: Collected Papers, 2 vols, Cambridge Mass, MIT Press

Google Scholar

Shapiro EY, 1988. “A Survey of Concurrent Logic Programming Languages”, Weizmann Inst., Israel, in preparation

Google Scholar

Taylor S, 1988. PhD Thesis, Weizmann Inst., Israel

Google Scholar

Ueda K, 1986. “Guarded Horn Clauses” DEng thesis, University of Tokyo

Google Scholar

Yang R and Aiso H, 1986. “P-Prolog, a Parallel Logic Language Based on Exclusive Relation” In Proc. of 3rd Int Logic Prog. Conf. (London, July) New York:Springer-Verlag, pp 255–269

Google Scholar

Warren DHD, 1987. “OR-parallel Execution Models of Prolog” In Tapsoft 87, LNCS250, New York: Springer-Verlag

Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

G. A. Ringwood. 1989. A Comparative Exploration of Concurrent Logic Languages. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 4: doi: 10.1017/S0269888900005130

G. A. Ringwood. 1989. A Comparative Exploration of Concurrent Logic Languages. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 4: doi: 10.1017/S0269888900005130

Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(20) PDF downloads(174)

A Comparative Exploration of Concurrent Logic Languages

G. A. Ringwood

Published online: 07 July 2009

The Knowledge Engineering Review 4, Article number: 10.1017/S0269888900005130 (1989) | Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: The execution model of Prolog, the first popular language based on Horn Clauses, was designed for efficient evaluation on von Neumann architectures. An alternative process model of execution, better suited for parallel evaluation and reactive programming, has given rise to a new class of languages based on Horn Clause logic, concurrent logic languages. There appears to be a profusion of languages which claim to fall into this class and it is difficult for an initiate to appreciate why each is the way it is. One notable member of this class, FGHC, forms the cornerstone of the Japanese 5th Generation Initiative. Fortunately, the seemingly exponential growth in these languages is only an illusion. A finite number of synchronization mechanisms arise from attempting (or sometimes not attempting) to control two principle synchronization difficulties: the premature binding problem and the binding conflict problem. Suitable combinations of these synchronization mechanisms reproduce the languages of this family. A background knowledge of Prolog is assumed and some familiarity with the difficulties encountered in concurrency would be advantageous.

HTML

Rights and permissions

References (30)

About this article

Cite this article

G. A. Ringwood. 1989. A Comparative Exploration of Concurrent Logic Languages. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 4: doi: 10.1017/S0269888900005130

G. A. Ringwood. 1989. A Comparative Exploration of Concurrent Logic Languages. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 4: doi: 10.1017/S0269888900005130

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Return

{{lists.name}}

A Comparative Exploration of Concurrent Logic Languages

Abstract