School Homepage

Papers of Patricia M. Hill

Software Support for CLP: Papers

Technical Reports at Leeds

A comparative study of eight constraint programming languages

[Page last updated on 2000/10/25.]

Antonio Fernandez
E.T.S. de Ingenieria Informatica
Departamento de Lenguajes y Ciencias de la Computacion
Despacho 3.2.50
Universidad de Malaga
Teatinos s/n

Patricia M. Hill
School of Computing
The University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT


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.}


Constraint Programming, Constraint Propagator, Domain, Labeling Strategy, Solvers.

Available: Pdf version BibTeX entry.