Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!mcsun!ukc!icdoc!qmw-cs!mmh
From: mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: Can I talk about Parlog here?
Message-ID: <3056@sequent.cs.qmw.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Nov 90 15:29:58 GMT
References: <EIVERSON.90Nov12212535@thrinakia.nmsu.edu> <EIVERSON.90Nov13182825@aigyptos.nmsu.edu> <1990Nov15.190217.21923@ida.liu.se>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London, UK.
Lines: 20
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <1990Nov15.190217.21923@ida.liu.se> felkl@aste16.Berkeley.EDU (Feliks Kluzniak) writes:
>Ah, I've never used IC Parlog, and I'm not particularly interested in
>parallel parsing. What I AM interested in is why people choose to use
>logic programming systems (parallel or otherwise) that ever crash with a
>segmentation fault.

Because these are experimental systems. If nobody ever
experimented with new languages, we'd still be writing in
machine code. The developers of new languages need experience
and feedback from potential users before doing all the tedious
work involved in getting something to the perfection required
by a commercial system.

Those taking the brave step of using an experimental language
have the advantage of being one step ahead in their research if
the language really is useful and enables one to express things
with ease which would otherwise be extremely difficult to work
with (as I believe is the case with Parlog).

Matthew Huntbach