Comparison of Prolog implementations explained

The following Comparison of Prolog implementations provides a reference for the relative feature sets and performance of different implementations of the Prolog computer programming language. A comprehensive discussion of the most significant Prolog systems is presented in an article published in the 50-years of Prolog anniversary issue of the journal Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

Portability

There are Prolog implementations that are radically different, with different syntax and different semantics (e.g. Visual Prolog)[1] and sub-communities have developed around different implementations.[1]

Code that strictly conforms to the ISO-Prolog core language is portable across ISO-compliant implementations. However, the ISO standard for modules is an extension which was not fully adopted in most Prolog systems.[1]

Factors that can adversely affect portability include: use of bounded vs. unbounded integer arithmetic, additional types such as string objects, advanced numeric types (rationals, complex), feature extensions such as Unicode, threads, and tabling.[2] Use of libraries unavailable in other implementations and library organisation:[1]

Currently, the way predicates are spread over the libraries and system built-ins differs enormously. [...] Fortunately, there are only few cases where we find predicates with the same name but different semantics (e.g. delete/3)

Main features

PlatformFeaturesToolkitProlog Mechanics
NameOSLicenceSyntax
AllegroPrologUnix, Windows, Mac OS X (limited free edition available), via Lisp, via Lisp, via Lisp, via LispS-expressions. Full Common Lisp integration.
BPrologUnix, Windows, Mac OS X (free for non-commercial uses)ISO-Prolog, plus event-handling, CLP(FD), and tabling
CiaoUnix, Windows, Mac OS XISO-Prolog, plus extensions
DOS-Prolog[3] MS-DOSEdinburgh Prolog
ECLiPSeLinux, Windows, Solaris, macOSExtended Prolog, Multi-dialect, including ISO
GNU PrologUnix, Windows, Mac OS XISO-Prolog
JIPrologJVM, Android via Java via JavaISO-Prolog
JLog[4] JVMISO-Prolog
JScriptLogWeb BrowserISO-Prolog
jTrolog[5] JVMISO-Prolog
WIN-Prolog[6] WindowsEdinburgh Prolog with extensions
Open PrologMac OS
Poplog PrologOnly through POP-11, on LinuxEdinburgh Prolog, with interfaces to Poplog Common Lisp and Pop-11
Scryer PrologLinux, Windows, macOSISO-Prolog
class="table-rh" SICStus PrologUnix, Linux, Windows, macOSISO-Prolog
Strawberry PrologWindows, UnixNot ISO-Prolog + extensions
SWI-PrologUnix, Linux, Windows, macOSISO-Prolog, Edinburgh Prolog
tuPrologJVM, AndroidISO-Prolog
Visual PrologWindows
XSB PrologLinux, Windows, Solaris, macOSISO-Prolog, tabled WFS
YAP-PrologLinux, Windows, Solaris, Mac OS X, HP-UXEdinburgh, ISO-Prolog, Quintus and SICStus Prolog compatible

Operating system and web-related features

OS-relatedWeb-related
NameConditional compilationSocketsMulti-threadingTablingHTTP clientHTTP serverHTML ParserRDF Triple store
BProlog
Ciao
ECLiPSe
GNU Prolog
WIN-Prolog
Scryer Prolog
SICStus Prolog
SWI-Prolog
Visual Prolog
XSB
YAP-Prolog

Static analysis

NameType checkerDeterminacy checkerCall-pattern checker
Ciao
GNU Prolog
SICStus Prolog
SWI-Prolog
Visual Prolog
XSB
YAP-Prolog

Optimizations

NameTail-Call OptimizationChoice Point EliminationEnvironment TrimmingJust-in-Time Indexing
Ciao
ECLiPSe
GNU Prolog
SICStus Prolog
SWI-Prolog
Visual Prolog
XSB
YAP-Prolog

Release

NameVersionDate
class="table-rh" AllegroProlog1.1.22018-12-12
class="table-rh" BProlog8.12014-02-23
class="table-rh" JIProlog4.1.7.12021-08-26
class="table-rh" Ciao1.222022-09-28
class="table-rh" DOS-Prolog8.0
class="table-rh" ECLiPSe7.12023-01-01
class="table-rh" GNU Prolog1.5.02023-02-21
class="table-rh" JLog1.3.62007-09-13
class="table-rh" JScriptLog0.7.5 beta2007-09-10
class="table-rh" jTrolog
class="table-rh" WIN-Prolog8.02022-07-14
class="table-rh" Open Prolog
class="table-rh" Poplog PrologV162020-01-06
class="table-rh" Scryer Prolog0.9.32023-11-02
class="table-rh" SICStus Prolog4.9.02023-12-18
class="table-rh" Strawberry Prolog6.1 2023-08-23
class="table-rh" SWI-Prolog9.1.182023-11-01
class="table-rh" tuProlog2P-Kt 0.31.182023-10-24
class="table-rh" Visual Prolog10, Build 10002021-04-15
class="table-rh" XSB Prolog5.02022-05-15
class="table-rh" YAProlog7.1.02020-12-19

Benchmarks

External links

Notes and References

  1. Book: Wielemaker . J. . Costa . V. T. S. . On the Portability of Prolog Applications . 10.1007/978-3-642-18378-2_8 . Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages . Lecture Notes in Computer Science . 6539 . 69–83 . 2011 . 978-3-642-18377-5 . 10.1.1.1030.9396 .
  2. Jan Wielemaker and Vıtor Santos Costa: Portability of Prolog programs: theory and case-studies. CICLOPS-WLPE Workshop 2010 .
  3. Web site: 5 November 2023 . DOS-Prolog 8.0 . Logic Programming Associates.
  4. Web site: JLog Homepage . 2023-11-03 . jlogic.sourceforge.net.
  5. Web site: 2012-11-13 . Jtrolog — Java.net . 2023-11-03 . https://web.archive.org/web/20121113023104/http://java.net/projects/jTrolog . 2012-11-13 .
  6. Web site: 5 November 2023 . WIN-Prolog 8.0 . Logic Programming Associates.
  7. B. Demoen, and P. Nguyen, About unnecessary performance differences between Prolog implementations, Proceedings of the Colloquium on Implementation of Constraint and Logic Programming Systems (CICLOPS 2001)
  8. 1990. 10.1145/122193.122197. 54–60. 25. ACM SIGPLAN Notices. A prolog space benchmark suite. Bothe . K.. 12. free.
  9. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/swift93summary.html A Summary of XSB Performance (1993)
  10. Book: 2401. 194–208. 2002. 10.1007/3-540-45619-8_14. Copying Garbage Collection for the WAM: to Mark or Not to Mark? . R. . B.. Logic Programming. Nguyen . P. L.. Vandeginste. Demoen. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 978-3-540-43930-1. 10.1.1.13.2586.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Comparison of Prolog implementations".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2025, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.