He finds Scryer performs worse, which he does comment on, he also explains some tradeoffs and historic choices in SWI's design which affects its performance. I think I have seen the author of Scryer saying that's not surprising and Scryer is still building up core functionality where SWI has had 30+ years to optimise, but I don't remember where I read that.
So SWI appears to be more performant, it has an open license, so as per the GGP's claim regarding Scryer in the post above, it must not be ISO-compliant?
jodrellblank|1 year ago
https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/porting-the-swi-prolog-...
He finds Scryer performs worse, which he does comment on, he also explains some tradeoffs and historic choices in SWI's design which affects its performance. I think I have seen the author of Scryer saying that's not surprising and Scryer is still building up core functionality where SWI has had 30+ years to optimise, but I don't remember where I read that.
SWI has a document explaining some strengths and weaknesses regarding performance: https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?section=swiorother
Edit: some discussion on Scryer previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28966133
jfmc|1 year ago
b800h|1 year ago