yap-6.3/Logtalk/examples/benchmarks/NOTES.txt

================================================================
Logtalk - Open source object-oriented logic programming language
Release 2.30.7

Copyright (c) 1998-2007 Paulo Moura.  All Rights Reserved.
================================================================


To load this example and for sample queries, please see the SCRIPT file.

This folder provides simple benchmark tests for comparing Logtalk message 
sending performance with direct predicates calls in plain Prolog.
These benchmarks may also be used for comparing Logtalk message sending 
performance across Prolog compilers.

This example is made of four loader files and five source files:

	loader_events.lgt
		loads all source files with event support turned on
	loader_no_events.lgt
		loads all source files with event support turned off
	loader_static_binding.lgt
		loads all source files with event support turned off and using
		static binding
	loader.lgt
		the same as the loader_static_binding.lgt file

	benchmarks.lgt
		contains the benchmark goals and testing predicates
	plain.lgt
		contains a definition for a list length predicate and a predicate 
		for testing performance of the built-in predicates assertz/1 and 
		retract/1
	module.pl (not loaded by default; see below)
		contains the same definition of a list length predicate 
		encapsulated in a module
	objects.lgt
		contains an object encapsulating the same definition of a list   
		length predicate, plus two descendant objects to simulate a small 
		hierarchy (used for testing calls to imported category predicates)
	database.lgt
		contains predicates for testing the performance of the built-in 
		database methods assertz/1 and retract/1
	category.lgt
		contains a single predicate used when comparing performance of
		calls to imported category predicates using direct calls and using 
		messages to "self"

You may have noticed above that the benchmark predicates and the predicates 
for plain Prolog testing are both encapsulated in Logtalk source files. The 
Logtalk compiler just copies the plain Prolog code to the generated Prolog 
files. The reason for using the .lgt extension for these files is simply to 
make it possible to load all the example code using calls to the predicates 
logtalk_load/1-2.

By default, the benchmark tests on the SCRIPT file use a list of 20 elements 
as an argument to the list length predicates. When dynamic binding is used, 
increasing the list length leads to decreasing performance differences between 
plain Prolog and Logtalk as the list length computation time far outweighs the
overhead of the message sending mechanism. Likewise, decreasing the list 
length leads to increasing performance differences between plain Prolog and 
Logtalk (up to the point you will be measuring the Logtalk message sending 
mechanism overhead compared to plain Prolog predicate calls). In real-life 
applications, only testing can give you a balanced view on the trade-offs 
between plain Prolog performance and Logtalk programming features.

By default, the loader files used to load the example code do not load the 
module.pl file. Edit these files if your Prolog compiler supports a module
system and you want to run some comparative performance tests between plain 
Prolog, Prolog modules, and Logtalk objects. Note that you may need to edit 
the code on the module.pl file to make any necessary compatibility changes 
for your Prolog compiler module system. For most Prolog module systems, the 
performance of module calls is close or even identical to the performance of 
plain Prolog calls when using imported predicates and implicit qualification.
When using explicit module qualification, performance can be significantly 
worse.

When static binding is used, messages to objects are, whenever possible, 
translated to direct predicate calls. Thus performance should be about the 
same as in plain Prolog predicate calls. However, due to the overhead of 
three extra arguments per object predicate (used for passing the execution 
context), the performance of Logtalk optimized calls might be slightly 
worse than the equivalent plain Prolog predicate calls.