The other day I answered a question on Stack Overflow that had to do with traversing a maze. Somewhat more idiomatically, the code would have looked like this:
Before I explain what’s special about this, let’s reflect for a moment on Prolog. Paul Graham once observed:
You often hear that programming languages are good because they provide abstraction. I think what we really like is not abstraction per se but brevity. A way of expressing programs that was more abstract, but made your programs longer, would not be very enticing. (This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens in Prolog.)
Why might Prolog have a reputation for being expansive rather than brief? One reason that comes to mind is that Prolog doesn’t actually have block structure. Each basic block usually has to become its own predicate.
Before I cower in defeat, let’s think about this maze problem. If I were writing in an object-oriented language and I wanted to create this maze abstraction, I would create an object to represent the maze, called Maze. I would add a method for finding what’s in the maze at a particular coordinate. I’d want a method for iterating through the maze, and maybe another one to look up the coordinate for a particular value. That last one, I may need to write a couple ways, one that returns all the occurrences, one that returns just one occurrence. I’d probably also want a class for the coordinate pairs, so I could treat them atomically, and maybe some class to combine a point and a value for the iteration scheme. In the end, I would wind up with probably seven or so methods and probably two or three classes and interfaces. It would look something like this:
What’s interesting about
mazeCell/3 is that it actually can do all of those things at the same time.
mazeCell(+Maze, -Value, +Point) (i.e. calling with a ground maze and point) returns the value at that point, equivalent to Java
#valueAt. Calling with just the maze (
mazeCell(+Maze, -Value, -Point)) iterates the maze, like Java’s
#iterator. Calling with the value and the maze (
mazeCell(+Maze, +Value, -Point)) searches the maze for that value, like Java’s
locationOf. No new types were needed to represent a combination of multiple things; Prolog has no problem “returning” multiple values. Defining a new operator like
@ is trivial.
You may object that the type and internal structure of the maze is not being hidden, and that may be true, but
mazeCell/3 doesn’t reveal bits of that structure directly. You could change your representation of mazes and just change
mazeCell/3; if all your other interactions with the maze go through it, they will continue to work. There is some loss of encapsulation (though Prolog implementations typically have modules which make it possible to regain it) but the inner structure can be mostly ignored since most queries can just go through this one relation.
What’s really going on here is that we are not defining a “method” to iterate
mazeCell, we are defining a relation between a maze, the locations in the maze and the contents of those locations. The relation is more abstract than a method; that’s why it encompasses so many different procedures in the procedural domain.
So I dispute Paul Graham’s assertion. The Prolog code for some procedure may be larger than equivalent code in other languages. But you actually buy something for the higher abstraction: much greater flexibility, and that winds up paying off harder. The code for
mazeCell/3 may be long compared to
locationOf in Java, but you have to write essentially the same code four or five times where in Prolog, you could write it once. The total savings are big.