swipl-devel VS oso

Still, there are many useful tools based on these ideas, used by programmers and mathematicians alike. What you describe sounds rather like Datalog (e.g. Soufflé Datalog), where you supply some rules and an initial fact, and the system repeatedly expands out the set of facts until nothing new can be derived. (This has to be finite, if you want to get anywhere.) In Prolog (e.g. SWI Prolog) you also supply a set of rules and facts, but instead of a fact as your starting point, you give a query containing some unknown variables, and the system tries to find an assignment of the variables that proves the query. And finally there is a rich array of theorem provers and proof assistants such as Agda, Coq, Lean, and Twelf, which can all be used to help check your reasoning or explore new ideas.

SWIProlog[1] has so far been my go to due to the extensive support system it has. However, I've been meaning to explore higher order logic a bit and Ciao[2] caught my attention there, with sugar for function-like notation and higher order programming including "lambda" style predicate expressions .... and it compiles down to executable. The function notation in this context is along the same lines as Mozart/Oz and can be convenient. Not explore the higher order aspects much though.

[1]: https://www.swi-prolog.org/

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciao_(programming_language)

?- version(). Welcome to SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 9.0.0)SWI-Prolog comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software. Please run ?- license. for legal details.For online help and background, visit https://www.swi-prolog.org For built-in help, use ?- help(Topic). or ?- apropos(Word). true. ?- del(a, L, [1,2,3]). L = [a, 1, 2, 3] ; L = [1, a, 2, 3] ; L = [1, 2, a, 3] ; L = [1, 2, 3, a] ; false.

$ swipl Welcome to SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 8.5.10) SWI-Prolog comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software. Please run ?- license. for legal details. For online help and background, visit https://www.swi-prolog.org For built-in help, use ?- help(Topic). or ?- apropos(Word). ?- [fm2gp_primes]. true. ?- time( setup_call_cleanup(open('prolog-primes.txt', write, Out), with_output_to(Out, primes(500_000)), close(Out)) ). % 8,766,852 inferences, 1.055 CPU in 1.198 seconds (88% CPU, 8311018 Lips) Out = (0x600000648100).

The utilities in dgc/bacics.pl that you linked yourself are not too advanced, too quickly. Understanding those is exactly what you need in order to be able to write useful grammars for two reasons. They show how to approach many common issues with DCGs; and you know what building blocks you have at your disposal. I feel you discarded those too fast and strongly suggest you try to revisit them.

- And last but not least... the ability to convert authorization logic into SQL [4]. Which is done by having the language return constraints over any unbound (free) variables.

To me this is what makes logic programming exciting for authorization. It gives you this small kernel of declarative programming, and gives you a ton of freedom to build on top.

[1] https://www.swi-prolog.org/

(Btw. I'm using SWI Prolog.)

Welcome to SWI-Prolog (threaded, 64 bits, version 8.0.2) SWI-Prolog comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software. Please run ?- license. for legal details. For online help and background, visit http://www.swi-prolog.org For built-in help, use ?- help(Topic). or ?- apropos(Word). ?- use_module(library(lists)). true. ?- clumped([a,a,a,b,b,c], Rs). ERROR: Undefined procedure: clumped/2 (DWIM could not correct goal) ?-

Many library predicates do the argument reordering to take advantage of this special case argument indexing as explained in the answer by u/mycl. For example library(apply) in SWI-Prolog. is full of those.

Link to GitHub -->

Not OP but Authentication is easy, authorization is a cross-cutting concern that often requires custom code. E.g., there are people and teams, both of which can have different kinds of access to something (read/write). Sometimes teams have sub-teams. Do the sub-teams have access to the parent teams' resources and/or vice versa? Also what kind of sharing are you going to support? Do people have to have an account to view stuff shared to them or can you just send a link? There are some efforts to make custom DSLs for describing authorization policies, to avoid cross-cutting code[1].

Computed fields require different treatment at every level of the stack. This isn't inherently hard, but it is an extra feature these low-code/no-code platforms need. Where things get difficult is inn migrations. It's common for a field that is computed at the beginning to become customizable, or for the computation to change. When that happens, what should the value be for old columns? Computed fields also often pull data from multiple other tables, which may require some combination of custom queries and database optimization.

[1] https://github.com/osohq/oso

Oso and OpenFGA are two alternatives that implement Zanzibar-style authorisation.

There's Oso as well

Well this was fun to see! I'm the CTO of Oso, where we're building Polar (the second of the links mentioned https://docs.osohq.com/).

I have a few really minor nitpicks, so will try and make up for it by adding to the discussion :)

First of all, it doesn't really make sense to talk about Datalog as a good language for authorization, because much like with Prolog there doesn't really exist a single implementation of it. OPA's language Rego is a datalog variant, and Polar started out as a Prolog variant (although it's not really recognisable as one any more).

And that's an important point because otherwise it would be pretty reasonable to decide that: logic programming is good for authorization => you should go find the most battle-tested language out there and use that. For example, there's SWI Prolog [1] and Scryer Prolog [2] as two of my favourites.

To me, the thing that is mind-blowing about logic programming, is (a) how powerful the paradigm is, and (b) how concisely you can implement a logic programming language. Take miniKanren [3] which is a full-blown logic language in a few hundred lines of code.

In my mind, the original article makes a decent case that logic programming is a good fit for authorization. And just generally I love anyone bringing attention to that :)

But to me, the reason logic programming is such a solid foundation for authorization logic is the pieces you can build on top of it. For Polar, we've added:

- Types! So you can write authorization logic over your data types and help structure your logic. We've implemented this by simply adding an additional operator into the language that can check types

First time hearing about rhai, but there's a project in that space called Oso that's authored in Rust and uses a different DSL than Rego. You may or may not find it appealing.

Authentication is probably the aspect of it that's the weakest. Authorization has a few nice libs, with Oso probably being the nicest, but authentication is mostly roll your own from what I've seen.

> Hopefully Oso open source their library.

https://github.com/osohq/oso seems to have the core, C FFI, and language bindings.

Thanks! PHP is a highly requested language for us and we've been rolling them out based on demand. You can vote for it if you want here https://github.com/osohq/oso/issues/791