[mercury-users] Error detection rate in Mercury vs Other Languages (esp C++ and Python)

Paul Bone pbone at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Mon Dec 5 13:52:23 AEDT 2011

On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 04:05:33PM -0500, Chris King wrote:
> Now *I'm* "morbidly curious" (which BTW is not a good phrase to use to
> make friends)... why do you bother to use Mercury if you avoid
> nondeterminism and failure?

Since the anwser(s) for this question are subjective I thought I'd add my 2c.

I also avoid nondeterminism and failure.  Mercury has a desireable conbination
of features:  purity, strong typechecking, switch completeness checking (a
subset of determinism checking) and eager evaluation.

The tools of Mercury are also very compelling, in particular the declarative
debugger and the deep profiler.

In particular the deep profiler is very helpful for my work on
auto-parallelization.  Therefore, this and eager evaluation make Mercury the
most desirable platform for auto-parallelization work.

I dislike the syntax, especially wrt pred, mode and instantiation state
declrations.  But improving on this would mean changing the syntax drastically
and I don't have a better solution.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mercurylang.org/archives/users/attachments/20111205/ddd35da3/attachment.sig>

More information about the users mailing list