article

A Comparative Study of Eight Constraint Programming LanguagesOver the Boolean and Finite Domains

Authors:

Antonio J. Fernández,

Patricia M. HillAuthors Info & Claims

Constraints, Volume 5, Issue 3

Pages 275 - 301

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009816801567

Published: 01 July 2000 Publication History

Abstract

This paper compares the efficiency of a number of Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) systems in the setting of finite domains as well as a specific aspect of their expressiveness (that concerning reification and meta-constraints). There are two key reasons for adopting CLP technology for solving a problem. The first is its expressiveness enabling a declarative solution with readable code which is vital for maintenance and the second is the provision of an efficient implementation for the computationally expensive procedures. However, CLP systems differ significantly both in how solutions may be expressed and the efficiency of their execution and it is important that both these factors are taken into account when choosing the best CLP system for a particular application. This paper aids this choice by illustrating differences between the systems, indicating their particular strengths and weaknesses.

References

[1]

1. ECLⁱPS^e 3.5, User Manual. (1995). ECRC, Munich.

[2]

2. Benhamou, F. (1994). Interval constraint logic programming. In Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends, (A. Podelski, editor), LNCS 910, Springer Verlag, pp. 1-21.

[3]

3. Carlsson, M., Ottosson, G. & Carlson, B. (1997). An open-ended finite domain constraint solver. Proc. of the 9th International Symposium on Programming Languages: Implementations, Logics and Programs (PLILP'97), LNCS 1292, Springer Verlag, pp. 191-206.

Digital Library

[4]

4. Carlson, B., Carlsson, M. & Diaz, D. (1994). Entailment of finite domain constraints. Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, pp. 339-353.

Digital Library

[5]

5. Codognet, P. & Diaz, D. (1993). A minimal extension of the WAM for clp(FD). Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, pp. 774-790.

Digital Library

[6]

6. Codognet, P. & Diaz, D. (1994). clp(B): Combining simplicity and efficiency in Boolean constraint solving. Proc. of the 6th International Symposium on Programming Languages Implementation and Logic Programming (PLILP'94), LNCS 844, Springer Verlag, pp. 244-260.

Digital Library

[7]

7. Codognet, P. & Diaz, D. (1996a). Compiling constraints in clp(FD). The Journal of Logic Programming 27: 185-226.

[8]

8. Codognet, P. & Diaz, D. (1996b). Local propagation methods for solving Boolean constraints in constraint logic programming. The Journal of Automated Reasoning 17(1).

[9]

9. Cras, J-Y. (1993). A review of industrial constraints solving tools. AI Intelligence.

[10]

10. Csontó, J. & Paralic, J. (1997). A look at CLP: theory and application. Applied Artificial Intelligence 11: 59-69.

[11]

11. Fernández, A. J. & Hill, P. M. (1997). Boolean and finite domain solvers compared using self referential quizzes. Proc. of the Joint Conference on Declarative Programming (APPIA-GULP-PRODE'97), pp. 533- 544.

[12]

12. Fernández, A. J. (1998). http://www:lcc:uma.es/~afdez/srq.

[13]

13. Frühwirth, T. (1994). Constraint handling rules. In Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends, (A. Podelski, editor), LNCS 910, Springer Verlag, pp. 90-107.

[14]

14. Haralick, R. & Elliot, G. (1980). Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 14: 263-313.

[15]

15. Henz, M. (1996). Don't be puzzled! Workshop on Constraint Programming in conjunction with the 2nd International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP'96).

[16]

16. IF/Prolog V5.0A, constraints package. (1994). Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG, Munich, Germany.

[17]

17. Ilog SOLVER, Reference Manual, version 3.1. (1995).

[18]

18. Jaffar, J. & Lassez, J. L. (1987). Constraint logic programming. Proc. of the 14th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL'87), pp. 111-119.

Digital Library

[19]

19. Jaffar, J., Michaylov, S., Stuckey, P. & Yap, R. (1992). The CLP(R) language and system. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 14(3): 339-395.

Digital Library

[20]

20. Jaffar, J. & Maher, M. J. (1994). Constraint logic programming: a survey. The Journal of Logic Programming 19&20: 503-581.

[21]

21. Müller, T. & Würtz, J. (1996). Interfacing propagators with a concurrent constraint language. Workshop on Parallelism and Implementation Technologies for (Constraint) Logic Languages.

[22]

22. N'Dong, S. (1997). Prolog IV ou la programmation par contraintes selon PrologIA. Proc. of Sixièmes Journées Francophones de Programmation Logique et Programmation par Contraintes (JFPLC'97), pp. 235-238.

[23]

23. Puget, J-F. & Leconte, M. (1995) Beyond the glass box: constraints as objects. Proc. of International Symposium on Logic Programming (ILPS'95), MIT Press.

[24]

24. Schulte, C. (1995). Solver-An Oz search debugger. Proceedings of International Workshop on Oz Programming (WOz'95), Institut Dalle Molle d'Intelligence Artificielle Perceptive, Martigny, Switzerland.

[25]

25. SICStus Prolog User's manual, release 3#5. (1996). By the Intelligent Systems Laboratory, Swedish Institute of Computer Science.

[26]

26. Sidebottom, G. (1993). A Language for Optimizing Constraint Propagation. PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University.

Digital Library

[27]

27. Smolka, G. (1995). The Oz programming model. In Computer Science Today, (Jan van Leeuwen, editor), LNCS 1000, Springer Verlag, pp. 324-343.

[28]

28. Van Hentenryck, P. (1988). Tutorial on the CHIP systems and applications. Workshop of Constraint Logic Programming. Rehovot, Israel, Weizmann Institute of Science.

[29]

29. Van Hentenryck, P. (1989). Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming. MIT Press.

Digital Library

[30]

30. Van Hentenryck, P., Saraswat, V. A. & Deville, Y. (1994). Design, implementation and evaluation of the constraint language cc(FD). In Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends, (A. Podelski, editor), LNCS 910, Springer Verlag, pp. 293-316.

Digital Library

[31]

31. Proc. of the Sixth International Conference on the Practical Application of Prolog and the Fourth International Conference on the Practical Application of Constraint Technology (PAPPACT98). (1998). Publisher Practical Application Company Ltd.

[32]

32. Zhou, N-F. (1997). B-Prolog User's Manual (Version 2.1). Faculty of Computer Science and Systems Engineering, Kyushu Institute of Technology, Fukuoka, Japan.

Cited By

Crawford BSoto RJohnson F(2018)A Framework to Simplify Usability Analysis of Constraint SolversSocial Computing and Social Media. User Experience and Behavior10.1007/978-3-319-91521-0_2(19-31)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-319-91521-0_2
Karataş AOǧuztüzün HDoǧru A(2010)Global constraints on feature modelsProceedings of the 16th international conference on Principles and practice of constraint programming10.5555/1886008.1886055(537-551)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1886008.1886055
Karataş AOğuztüzün HDoğru A(2010)Mapping extended feature models to constraint logic programming over finite domainsProceedings of the 14th international conference on Software product lines: going beyond10.5555/1885639.1885666(286-299)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1885639.1885666
Show More Cited By

A Comparative Study of Eight Constraint Programming LanguagesOver the Boolean and Finite Domains
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Knowledge representation and reasoning
2. Theory of computation
  1. Logic

Recommendations

Programming finite-domain constraint propagators in Action Rules

In this paper, we propose a new language, called AR (Action Rules), and describe how various propagators for finite-domain constraints can be implemented in it. An action rule specifies a pattern for agents, an action that the agents can carry out, and ...
Implementing logical connectives in constraint programming

Combining constraints using logical connectives such as disjunction is ubiquitous in constraint programming, because it adds considerable expressive power to a constraint language. We explore the solver architecture needed to propagate such combinations ...
Constraint programming viewed as rule-based programming

We study here a natural situation when constraint programming can be entirely reduced to rule-based programming. To this end we explain first how one can compute on constraint satisfaction problems using rules represented by simple first-order formulas. ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Constraints

Constraints Volume 5, Issue 3

July 2000

106 pages

ISSN:1383-7133

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Copyright © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 July 2000

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

14
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 29 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Crawford BSoto RJohnson F(2018)A Framework to Simplify Usability Analysis of Constraint SolversSocial Computing and Social Media. User Experience and Behavior10.1007/978-3-319-91521-0_2(19-31)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-319-91521-0_2
Karataş AOǧuztüzün HDoǧru A(2010)Global constraints on feature modelsProceedings of the 16th international conference on Principles and practice of constraint programming10.5555/1886008.1886055(537-551)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1886008.1886055
Karataş AOğuztüzün HDoğru A(2010)Mapping extended feature models to constraint logic programming over finite domainsProceedings of the 14th international conference on Software product lines: going beyond10.5555/1885639.1885666(286-299)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1885639.1885666
Mancarella PTerreni GSadri FToni FEndriss U(2010)The ciff proof procedure for abductive logic programming with constraintsTheory and Practice of Logic Programming10.5555/1735396.17353979:6(691-750)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1735396.1735397
Mancarella PTerreni GSadri FToni FEndriss U(2010)The ciff proof procedure for abductive logic programming with constraintsTheory and Practice of Logic Programming10.1017/S14710684099900939:6(691-750)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1017/S1471068409990093
Mancarella PTerreni GSadri FToni FEndriss U(2009)The ciff proof procedure for abductive logic programming with constraintsTheory and Practice of Logic Programming10.5555/1735390.17353919:6(691-750)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1735390.1735391
Abdennadher SAly MEdward M(2009)Constraint-Based Timetabling System for the German University in CairoApplications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management10.5555/1534043.1534050(69-81)Online publication date: 21-Apr-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1534043.1534050
Dovier AFormisano APontelli E(2009)An empirical study of constraint logic programming and answer set programming solutions of combinatorial problemsJournal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence10.1080/0952813070153817421:2(79-121)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1080/09528130701538174
Mancini TMicaletto DPatrizi FCadoli M(2008)Evaluating ASP and Commercial Solvers on the CSPLibConstraints10.1007/s10601-007-9028-613:4(407-436)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2008
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10601-007-9028-6
Cadoli MMancini TMicaletto DPatrizi F(2006)Evaluating ASP and commercial solvers on the CSPLibProceedings of the 2006 conference on ECAI 2006: 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence August 29 -- September 1, 2006, Riva del Garda, Italy10.5555/1567016.1567037(68-72)Online publication date: 22-May-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1567016.1567037
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents