satisfactory way. I only can speculate about the outcome of future experiments focussing 
on exactly this issue. It would be extremely surprising to me, if specialization would not 
make a difference, rather I believe it does make a difference. Especially for the 
implementation of a logical language (rather than an imperative or functional one) it may 
be crucial to use hardware specialized to carry out the required logical operations. At 
present the progress in machine development might still outway this advantage: until a 
specialized machine is ready for operation, the general purpose machines have become so 
advanced in performance that they easily compensate the disadvantage of being 
unspecialized. I am convinced, however, that ultimately machines dedicated to the style 
of programming (logical, functional, imperative) will become crucial, especially for logic 
programming. So the experiment carried out within the FGCS project will turn out to be 
extremely valuable for future logic-based machine design. In appreciating this judgment 
one should keep in mind what I said in the previous section concerning the value of logic 
in producing reliable software fast, since people tend to forget the investment in terms of 
people's time spent for software production in machine comparisons. 

As to the choice of KL1 there might be the concern that it is not really a logical language 
inpure form. Although this is in fact true, I still believe that KL1 is the best compromise 
which could be achieved at the time of the design of this particular language. I do expect 
a new and improved approach in this respect in some future project; but it is the fate of 
any project that at some point in time its results will be improved by further scientific 
progress. 


5. Perspectives for the future 

Given the outstanding success of the FGCS project I think it would be a waste of efforts, 
would the valuable infrastructure of ICOT and the basis in terms of machinery and 
software achieved now be abandoned. In other words, I strongly recommend that ICOT 
shall continue to exist for alimited period of time (e.g. five years) in some form or 
another. Its tasks might be to 

- evaluate the machines and software systems w.r.t. their crucial features; 
- exploit the results in various applications; 
- maintain the systems; and 
- pursue appropriate new research goals. 

Maintenance of the systems is especially important in view of the fact that MITI has 
adopted the policy to make all software available as free software which is a remarkable 
step which will have its effect in terms of international cooperation. Of course, this policy 
will bear its fruit only when the software will become available on standard machines 
other than PIMs; but as I understand there is anyway the plan to port it to a UNIX 
environment. 

There will be changes in the personell currently leading ICOT. I want to emphasize the 
enormous influence on the success of the project which is due to its scientific director Dr. 
Fuchi. Although I fully understand his desire to take a rest for his own personal research 
goals, it would be a real pity if one would not use his talents for some other, perhaps even 
grander enterprise. 

With having achieved such a high reputation for carrying out basic research in a 
successful way, the idea of a scientific institution for basic research based in Japan 
occurred to me. It could continue to play part of the role currently played by ICOT to 
maintain close links with researchers from all over the world. It could be a meeting place 


					- 44 -