Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!liuida!aste16!felkl From: felkl@aste16.Berkeley.EDU (Feliks Kluzniak) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Can I talk about Parlog here? Message-ID: <1990Nov22.174222.8614@ida.liu.se> Date: 22 Nov 90 17:42:22 GMT References: <2540@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> Sender: news@ida.liu.se (News Subsystem) Reply-To: felkl@aste16.Berkeley.EDU (Feliks Kluzniak) Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden Lines: 27 In article <2540@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>, Jim Crammond says: |> |> Sorry, but as the "irresponsible" professional who wrote the Parallel Parlog |> system I remain offended.... |> ... |> I would agree that the compiler was - and is - erroneous for not detecting |> bad Parlog programs and rejecting them, which is possible to do; however |> given limited resources this was not high enough on the priority list. |> |> The parallel parlog system isn't a commercial piece of software (although |> when used correctly it is more robust than some commercial systems I have |> seen). When you develop a system as part of research you tend to have to |> sacrifice some robustness/useability in favour more "publishable" things. Since Jim Crammond chose to post only his own part of the exchange we had through e-mail, I will refrain from posting my answer. This part of his own text says it all: what remains is whether we deem such behaviour responsible and professional or not. I DON't think this is a matter of taste, but let it rest. It is not a particular system or person that is of interest here, but whether people wish to maintain (and insist on maintaining) certain standards of programming. Personally, I find the distinction between commercial software and research software (i.e. software that just does not have to work, as long as it works sometimes!) rather strange. As a practising programmer, I am shocked by the apparently widespread acceptance of this distinction. --- Feliks Kluzniak