Re: Ann: SWI-Prolog 6.5.1

Hi Nicos,

On 08/14/2013 07:48 PM, Nicos Angelopoulos wrote:
>	1. with all libraries on a common repository there is less time wasted in porting features backwards and forwards,
>	   This would have a beneficial effect on both Swi and Yap developers' time.

Yes and no. Things that are now simple quick decisions with a few
changes in a couple of places need to go through defining proper
interfaces and considering the consequences on two systems. The main
advantage is that the libraries are likely to get better, not that it
takes less time.

>             Would a PhD position working on that make sense?

I doubt anyone can get a PhD from restructuring interfaces and setting up
git repos ...  That is a serious disadvantage of hosting these systems in
an academic setting.  On the one hand, the universities provide an
inspiring and innovative environment to work in.  On the other hand,
many tasks involved in running these projects that make them profitable
to the community do not fit well with the way universities work.

>             Integrate the mailing lists as a first step ?

I'm not against that.

>	2. a closer integration will increase the confidence of people picking up either of the two systems for
>	   research and commercial uses

Agree

>	3. can work as a de-facto framework and vehicle for standarisation of non-core features.

Probably also true.

>         4. if the work is successful in creating an N-point API/plug-n-play-framework it might well lead to new Prolog systems

Bart always says we should have less :-)

>         5.  it will be a good excuse to clear up pending issues that have low priority, such as independence from XPCE code

I don't know whether that is an aim. Maybe on the long run. For now, you
need GUI tools and XPCE might look ugly, but it is lightweight, fast,
portable and allows for quick development from Prolog.  Except for using
web technology, I see no clear replacement.

>	6. has the potential to involve cross-system users in ironing out the immediate and future decisions,
>		as well as form a core for the promotion of Prolog as a general purpose language
>
> I am not an expert in this area, but the most successful languages/systems seem to graduate to
> being group efforts even if they started as one-man shows.
>
> I fully appreciate that this is the mailing list of your Prolog system, i hope you don't mind too much.
>
> Let me take the opportunity though, to congratulate yourself and Vitor for having brought the systems really close.
> Your great work means that many of us (users) can now routinely use the same code on both Prologs.

Thanks for the kind words.  I've had several discussions about where to
head for with SWI-Prolog.  I still have little clue.

	Cheers --- Jan