Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!nntp.sunbelt.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!btnet!news.compulink.co.uk!cix.compulink.co.uk!usenet
From: alanw@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Alan Westwood")
Subject: Re: speed of prolog
Message-ID: <D9HypC.8yD@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Compulink Information eXchange
References: <9514916.11982@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 13:55:59 GMT
X-News-Software: Ameol
Lines: 17

fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes:

>Certainly efficiency is only one of the many factors which must
>be considered when selecting a language.  In most cases, efficiency
>should not weigh highly on the scale of relative importance.
>But in the cases where it does, C/C++ will probably be a better
>choice than Prolog.

Just to put this into perspective: I think assembler is much more 
efficient and would probably be a better choice than C/C++... 
and microcode is much more efficient than assembler...
and a parallel machine is more efficient than a Von Neumann machine...
and thinking is more efficient than doing...

Alan Westwood
LPA Ltd.
(alanw@cix.compulink.co.uk)
