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

Authors:
Antonio J. Fernández;Patricia M. Hill
Affiliations:
Departamento de Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Computacion, E.T.S.I.I., 29071 Teatinos, Málaga, Spain;School of Computer Studies,University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, England
Venue:
Constraints
Year:
2000

Citing 11
Cited 14

Constraint logic programming

POPL '87 Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages
Constraint satisfaction in logic programming

Constraint satisfaction in logic programming
The CLP( R ) language and system

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
A minimal extension of the WAM for clp(FD)

ICLP'93 Proceedings of the tenth international conference on logic programming on Logic programming
Entailment of finite domain constraints

Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Logic programming
clp(B): Combining Simplicity and Efficiency in Boolean Constraint Solving

PLILP '94 Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming
An Open-Ended Finite Domain Constraint Solver

PLILP '97 Proceedings of the9th International Symposium on Programming Languages: Implementations, Logics, and Programs: Including a Special Trach on Declarative Programming Languages in Education
Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of the Constraint Language cc(FD)

Selected Papers from Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends
Interval Constraint Logic Programming

Selected Papers from Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends
Constraint Handling Rules

Selected Papers from Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends
A language for optimizing constraint propagation

A language for optimizing constraint propagation

On Benchmarking Constraint Logic Programming Platforms. Response to Fernandez and Hill's “A Comparative Study of Eight Constraint Programming Languages over the Boolean and Finite Domains”

Constraints
An interval constraint system for lattice domains

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
Thesis: a generic, collaborative framework for interval constraint solving

AI Communications
A Generic, Collaborative Framework for Interval Constraint Solving: Thesis

AI Communications
Evaluating ASP and Commercial Solvers on the CSPLib

Constraints
Experimental analysis of optimization techniques on the road passenger transportation problem

Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence
Constraint-Based Timetabling System for the German University in Cairo

Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management
An empirical study of constraint logic programming and answer set programming solutions of combinatorial problems

Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence
Evaluating ASP and commercial solvers on the CSPLib

Proceedings of the 2006 conference on ECAI 2006: 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence August 29 -- September 1, 2006, Riva del Garda, Italy
An experimental comparison of constraint logic programming and answer set programming

AAAI'07 Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2
The ciff proof procedure for abductive logic programming with constraints: Theory, implementation and experiments

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
Mapping extended feature models to constraint logic programming over finite domains

SPLC'10 Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software product lines: going beyond
Global constraints on feature models

CP'10 Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Principles and practice of constraint programming
A comparison of CLP(FD) and ASP solutions to NP-Complete problems

ICLP'05 Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Logic Programming

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.01

Visualization

Abstract

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