================================================================ Logtalk - Open source object-oriented logic programming language Release 2.30.2 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.