Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> writes: >> Neither Haskell nor any conventional language has [evolved to evolve]
> True. Well - thinking about it, there's no fundamental difference between genetic algorithms - where you have a "genome" in the form of a set of parameters and genetic programming - where the "genome" is a program of some sort, typically Lisp code, since the syntax tree is so accessible and malleable. In either case, you have an interpreter that interprets the genome, the difference is mainly in the expressive power of the language. I haven't looked closely, but I suspect you might not want Turing-completeness in either case (Alberto?). But yes, by designing the language to evolve, we can get a head start compared to nature. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe