zlacker

>>matt_d+(OP)
This is a reference to the "Can programming be liberated from the von Neumann style?" from 1977. It argues for functional programming, making the point that the imperative style is more common for efficiency reasons, as the programming model is close to the computer architecture. It aims to be a general thought framework inviting to step a step back on some notions that have been (hastily?) accepted in the programming world.

It makes the same analogy that Prolog (or logic programming languages in general) have been strongly influenced by the resolution algorithm. In practice that means that if you write a non-trivial program, if performance is not right you'll need to understand the execution model and adapt to it, mainly with the pruning operator (!). So while the promise is to "declare" values and not think about the implementation details, you're railroaded to think in a very specific way.

I personally found that frustrating to find good solutions essentially unworkable because of this, in comparison with either imperative or functional paradigms that are significantly more flexible. As a result, Prolog-style programming feels limited to the small problems for which it is readily a good fit, to be integrated into a general program using a general-purpose language. I may be wrong on this, but of the 50 people that learned Prolog around the same time as me, none kept up with it. Meanwhile, other niche languages like Ocaml, Haskell and Scheme had good success.

Rethinking the language foundation could remove these barriers to give the language a broader user base.

>>woolio+du2
It might be a reference to that 1977 paper in name, but unlike that Backus paper using math to make its point, this reads like a shallow ad for using the Curry language. The central (and only) point is merely an example of rewriting a Prolog predicate for appending lists into Curry but without even the claim of generality. The rewritten Curry functions however trivially fix determinacy and variables to input and output roles when the entire point of logic variables in Prolog is that they're working either when bound to a value upon entering a predicate call, or can get bound to as many values indeterministically as needed until the procedure terminates succesfully (and then even more on backtracking over failed subsequent goals). The paper also glosses over the concept of unification here. I sure hope the referenced detail papers come with more substance.

The paper title doesn't even make sense? So he wants to "liberate" Logic Programming from predicates? Predicate Logic is First-Order Logic ... ie what YeGoblynQueenne says in another comment.

From a mere practical PoV, who is the author even addressing? Prolog, from the get go, was introduced with NLP, planning problems, and similar large combinatorical search spaces in mind and is used for the convenience it brings to these applications. That FP could theoretically be more broadly used is completely besides the point; Prolog's focus is its strength.