What started off (at least ostensibly) as a conversation about NLP ended up
being a conversation about the actor model, and the subject did change once,
but to something not AFAIK related to actors. If I was less patient about
wading though blah blah I might have missed interesting thoughts
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
relying on global knowledge when designing an actor system seems, to me,
not to be the right way
In our earlier discussion, you mentioned that actors model can be used to
implement lambda calculus. And this is true, given bog standard actors
model.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Chris Warburton
chriswa...@googlemail.comwrote:
To use David's analogy, there are some desirable properties that
programmers exploit which are inherently 3D and cannot be represented
in the 2D world. Of course, there are also 4D properties which our
3D
So it's message recognition and not actor recognition? Can actors
collaborate to recognize a message? I'm trying to put this in terms of
subjective/objective. In a subjective world there are only messages
(waves). In an objective world there are computers and routers and
networks (actors,
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Casey Ransberger
casey.obrie...@gmail.comwrote:
The computer is going to keep getting smaller. How do you program a phone?
It would be nice to be able to just talk to it, but it needs to be able --
in a programming context -- to eliminate ambiguity by asking me
LOL! I love your example. :-)
I used to work at a company working on natural language processing (in
Smalltalk no less). We had more than a dozen doctorate linguists and
computational linguists working at LingoMotors. Here's just one single and
overwhelming example of a challenge to overcome.
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Casey Ransberger
casey.obrie...@gmail.comwrote:
The computer is going to keep getting smaller. How do you program a phone?
It would be nice to be able to just talk to it, but it needs to be able --
in a programming
Carl Gundel ca...@psychesystems.com writes:
LOL! I love your example. :-)
I used to work at a company working on natural language processing (in
Smalltalk no less). We had more than a dozen doctorate linguists and
computational linguists working at LingoMotors. Here's just one single and
Sometimes I think that something like http://leapmotion.com will use
something like Ameslan to revolutionize programming. Maybe programming
will become less sedentary and more like dance dance revolution.
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Chris Warburton
chriswa...@googlemail.comwrote:
There is a distinction between programming a mobile phone and
programming when mobile.
True enough! And there's also a distinction between programming WITH a
mobile phone and programming while mobile. As hard as
John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com writes:
Sometimes I think that something like http://leapmotion.com will use
something like Ameslan to revolutionize programming. Maybe programming
will become less sedentary and more like dance dance revolution.
It depends on the programmer how sedentary they
I thought the desktop metaphor was programming.
On Apr 9, 2013 12:08 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Chris Warburton chriswa...@googlemail.com
wrote:
There is a distinction between programming a mobile phone and
programming when mobile.
True
My intuition, based on a very limited course on speech recognition at
University and my own heavy bias towards programming languages, is that
'serious' use of speech commands will end up evolving some terse,
phonetic, unambiguous vocal programming language
Tavis Rudd has become quite
John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com writes:
Sometimes I think that something like http://leapmotion.com will use
something like Ameslan to revolutionize programming. Maybe programming
will become less sedentary and more like dance dance revolution.
Two words: Minority Report
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
I also think that tonal audio output may be preferable to spoken output
as the amount of data increases. For example, imagine a service monitor
that hums along as requests are processed, becoming discordant when it
starts seeing error messages. This
I think I am now bogged down in a Meta Tarpit :D
A good question to ask is: can I correctly and efficiently implement
actors model, given these physical constraints? One might explore the
limitations of scalability in the naive model. Another good question to ask
is: is there a not-quite
Wasn't John McCarthy's Elephant programming language based on the metaphor
of conversation? Perhaps voice based programming interactions are
addressed there?
On Apr 9, 2013 8:46 AM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Casey Ransberger
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:21 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're being optimistic about human rationality there. (I
disagree. QED.)
Hmm, well, I'm afraid that indeed I would have only been right if we were
all consistently rational. And definitely we are not.
I find
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
popular implementations (like Akka, for example) give up things such as
Object Capability for nothing.. it's depressing.
Indeed. Though, frameworks shouldn't rail too much against their hosts.
I still
19 matches
Mail list logo
