Procedural code generation vs static expansion in modelling languages for constraint programming

Authors:
Julien Martin;Thierry Martinez;François Fages
Affiliations:
EPI Contraintes, INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt, Le Chesnay Cedex, France;EPI Contraintes, INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt, Le Chesnay Cedex, France;EPI Contraintes, INRIA Paris-Rocquencourt, Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Venue:
CSCLP'09 Proceedings of the 14th Annual ERCIM international conference on Constraint solving and constraint logic programming
Year:
2009

Citing 10
Cited 0

Polymorphic unification and ML typing

POPL '89 Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages
A branch & bound algorithm for the open-shop problem

GO-II Meeting Proceedings of the second international colloquium on Graphs and optimization
The OPL optimization programming language

The OPL optimization programming language
Search and strategies in OPL

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL)
Essence: A constraint language for specifying combinatorial problems

Constraints
A Geometric Constraint over k-Dimensional Objects and Shapes Subject to Business Rules

CP '08 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming
Modelling Search Strategies in Rules2CP

CPAIOR '09 Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems
From Rules to Constraint Programs with the Rules2CP Modelling Language

Recent Advances in Constraints
The modelling language zinc

CP'06 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming
From zinc to design model

PADL'07 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.01

Visualization

Abstract

To make constraint programming easier to use by the nonprogrammers, a lot of work has been devoted to the design of frontend modelling languages using logical and algebraic notations instead of programming constructs. The transformation to an executable constraint program can be performed by fundamentally two compilation schemas: either by a static expansion of the model in a flat constraint satisfaction problem (e.g. Zinc, Rules2CP, Essence) or by generation of procedural code (e.g. OPL, Comet). In this paper, we compare both compilation schemas. For this, we consider the rule-based modelling language Rules2CP with its static exansion mechanism and describe with a formal system a new compilation schema which proceeds by generation of procedural code. We analyze the complexity of both compilation schemas, and present some performance figures of both the compilation process and the generated code on a benchmark of scheduling and bin packing problems.