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.
The argument is basically that Prolog is not 100% declarative and that if we jump through a few hoops, and translate it all to functional notation, we can make it "more declarative". But let's instead compare the incomplete declarativeness of Prolog to a fully-imperative, zero-declarative language like Python or C#. We'll find I believe that most programmers are perfectly fine programming completely non-declaratively and don't have any trouble writing very complex programs in it, and that "OMG my language is not purely declarative" is the least of their problems. I hear some old, wizened nerds even manage to program in C where you actually can drop to the hardware level and push bits around registers entirely by hand O.o
result(World0, move(robot(R), Dir), World) :-
dissoc(World0, at(robot(R), X0), World1),
direction_modifier(Dir, Modifier),
X #= X0+Modifier,
conj(World1, at(robot(R), X), World).
result(World0, drop_rock(robot(R), Place), World) :-
dissoc(World0, capacity(Place, Capacity0), World1),
dissoc(World1, carring_rock(robot(R)), World2),
Capacity #= Capacity0 + 1,
conj(World2, capacity(Place, Capacity), World).
result(World0, pickup_rock(robot(R), Place), World) :-
dissoc(World0, capacity(Place, Capacity0), World1),
Capacity #= Capacity0 - 1,
conj(World1, capacity(Place, Capacity), World2),
conj(World2, carrying_rock(robot(R)), World).
...
...
...
carrying_rock vs carring_rock
Right now this seems to have all the downsides of programming exclusively with "magic strings", and I haven't been able to find any cure for it or even seen this problem discussed elsewhere.
*Edit:*
I even rewrote it for SICStus and downloaded their IDE and taught myself Eclipse just to use their IDE plugin, and found that setting breakpoints didn't help the problem, because naturally due to the fact that the functor is in the predicate signature, the predicate is never stepped into in the first place!
I could linearize the arguments and include them in the body but this destroys the indexing and can put me into "defaulty representation" territory.
The cure is to not try to program with "magic strings". You don't need to, and if you really want to, then you should try to understand what exactly it is that you're doing, and do it right.
Specifically, what you call "magic strings" are what we call "functions" in First Order Logic, and that Prolog calls compound terms, like carring_rock(robot(R)) which is in fact two compound terms, nested. Prolog lets you nest compound terms infinitely and if you really want to hurt yourself, one great way to do it is to nest terms everywhere.
The alternative is to understand that when you use compound terms as arguments to predicates (or other terms) you are really _typing_ those arguments. Above, "carring_rock(_)" is the type of the second argument of result/3, and "robot(_)" is the type of the single argument of carring_rock/1. The catch is, of course, that Prolog is not a typed language and it doesn't care if you want to hurt yourself. So if you need to have types like that, then you should write some code to explicitly handle types and do some type checking. For instance, right out the top of my head:
result_type(T):-
T =.. [carring_rock,R]
,robot_type(R)
,!.
result_type(T):-
throw('Unknwon result type':T)
robot_type(T):-
T =.. [robot,R]
, % ... further typing of R
,!.
robot_type(T):-
throw('Unknown robot type':T)
A simpler thing I'd advise, but that's going into style territory, is to keep variable names as short as possible. One reason it's hard to spot the mistake in the code above is that the source code is all cluttered with long variable names and the nesting of compound terms makes it even more cluttered. An IDE with good syntax highlighting can also help. Perversly, I find that there are many people who code in Prolog either without syntax highlighting at all or in IDEs that are not aware of common results of typos, like singleton variables. The SWI-Prolog IDE is good for this and Sweep for Emacs has a good reputation also (although I haven't tried it):
https://eshelyaron.com/sweep.html
Edit: it just occurred to me that the project I'm working on currently, in my post-doc, involves quite a bit of typing using compound terms as arguments, like you do above. I've opted for a program synthesis approach where the predicates I need with typing are automatically generated from a specification where I define the arguments of predicates' types. Doing the same thing by hand is probably my number two recommendation of how not to code in Prolog. Number one is "the dynamic database is evil", but does anyone listen to me? Never.
Edit 2: Covington et al's Coding Guidelines for Prolog make the same point:
5.13 Develop your own ad hoc run-time type and mode checking system.
Many problems during development (especially if the program is large and/or there
are several developers involved) are caused by passing incorrect arguments. Even
if the documentation is there to explain, for each predicate, which arguments are
expected on entry and on successful exit, they can be, and all too often they are,
overlooked or ignored. Moreover, when a “wrong” argument is passed, erratic be-
havior can manifest itself far from where the mistake was made (and of course,
following Murphy’s laws, at the most inconvenient time).
In order to significantly mitigate such problems, do take the time to write your
own predicates for checking the legality of arguments on entry to and on exit from
your procedures. In the production version, the goals you added for these checks
can be compiled away using goal_expansion/2.
>> I could linearize the arguments and include them in the body but this destroys the indexing and can put me into "defaulty representation" territory.
Sorry, I don't know what either of those are: "linearize the arguments" and "defaulty representation".
Prolog only has first-argument indexing normally, although some implementations let you change that and use your own indexing scheme. Is that what you did?
I am particularly grateful because most of the books as you know were written a long time ago and tend to focus more on the beauty of the language and tend to gloss over the software engineering or composing large reliable problems. It is very rare to meet someone with significant experience in Prolog that can still remember what it was like to struggle with issues like that. Most "criticism" I read about Prolog are very superficial and are distracting from the more pressing best practices, so I'm extremely grateful that you shared this paper and I am really surprised I've never encountered it before.
I am actually really shocked to hear that the advice is to roll your own type system, and it's really interesting. I wonder if that is also the case for other expressive languages such as Forth/PostScript, etc. Most of the languages I work with more often (Python/JS/TypeScript/Clojure/C# ... but PARTICULARLY Python) tend to view runtime assertions and type-checking as an *anti-pattern*.
So I am really pleased and surprised to hear that a language as expressive and eloquent as Prolog, at least some folks find that writing that sort of code to be acceptable.
I realize this comment is getting long but the technique you mentioned of using goal_expansion/2 to compile away the assertions --
the dang thing about Prolog is the more you look into it, the more powerful you realize it is, but I'll be damned if it's not impossible to find these things out without someone telling you about them. Most languages seem to be possible to self-teach, but if I were to self-teach Prolog I never would've learned about the concept of monotonicity and I'd be using cut operators willy-nilly etc, lucky that I stumbled on Markus's blog/videos and lucky that I bumped into you!
Just like Python dislikes defensive runtime type checking, another interesting thing is that HEAVY use of metaprogramming tends to be viewed disfavorably in lisp, at least in Clojure! It's typically "don't write macros unless you have no other choice, because no one wants to read/learn your damn macros". I assumed it would be the same way in Prolog, but perhaps I'm wrong?
Anyway thanks again for the really patient response and for sharing your experience.