On 6/2/07, Douglas Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
[*Footnote from the (or should be) above: I know people who have written
applications with no object-oriented technologies at all, using FORTRAN or
C, (or worse, purely procedural Java) and who claim to have developed an
ABM. I contend,
Why use OO methodologies to implement an application that is inherently
object-based?
For the same reason you don't use assembly language to write business
applications: it would be bad computer science. You could write an ABM in
any language, including assembly, but why in the world would you
Douglas Roberts wrote:
Why use OO methodologies to implement an application that is
inherently object-based
I think that the term `OO methodologies', at least in its popular usage
(e.g. C++, Java), is an inadequate foundation for the diversity of
ABMs. Specifically, constraints like
You are describing culture and the problem of culture change - I am
reading into your post a description of culture and the problem of
culture change.
An extended metaphor:
Begin with Hopfield's topographic, metaphorical, explanation of
neural net function. The topography is shaped by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello!
I've been lurking for awhile and am finally getting around to
introducing myself. I'm a software/simulation contractor in the
portland, oregon area, though my clients are spread farther.
I'm a simulant; hence, my main professional interests
Maybe we're thinking differently on the definition of bi-directionality. I'm
using the term as similar to circular logic. One of the fundamental
principles of programming discipline is to remove cycles in the dependencies
between objects. It's called the Acyclic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Heh, yeah, I miss that building. It had character before we moved in.
I even had a pet black widow. I presume she was evicted after we left.
[grin] Of course, I don't miss the spare tire around my waist that I
lost after moving away from La
The Cowgirl has taken up the slack left by La Tertulia's closing.
Or the slackards, at least. ;-}
--Doug
On 6/4/07, Glen E. P. Ropella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Heh, yeah, I miss that building. It had character before we moved in.
I even had a
Robert Howard wrote:
The more “good” constraints (or boundaries) we adopt and practice in
our lives, which require wisdom and self discipline, the easier it
becomes to formally analyze our inventions and communicate them to
others for peer review.
Unless they are bad constraints and only
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
Heh, yeah, I miss that building. It had character before we moved in.
I even had a pet black widow.
And a `manager' that enjoyed Meth. (The the police took him around the
time the black widow moved on.)
I remember the black widow - took up residence in some house plants - I
think we left it there to frolic.
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Heh, yeah, I miss that building. It had character before we moved in.
I even had a pet black widow. I presume
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
It would be nice if there was a clean line between the known and
unknown. Then it would be an argument about software engineering.
The situation is more like a modeler thinks that that something acts
within some range of
That's what modeling is! A framework for understanding! A tool for
communication!
The less constrained a framework is, the less useful it is.
Think about it. A hammer is useful because it has a rigid body that hits
nails on the head. No one would use it if the handle was made of flexible
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Howard wrote:
That's what modeling is! A framework for understanding! A tool for
communication!
I disagree. Modeling is not _a_ framework. It is the _process_ of
building a framework. Modeling is a behavior, not a state. The outcome
of
That's why we have many different highly-constrained tools in a tool box
rather than a single super-flexible unconstrained one.
Robert Howard
Phoenix, Arizona
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Monday, June 04,
Yes. Modeling is a verb, and a framework is a noun. I concede.
Should I say that modeling is the process of creating a framework for
understanding?
(Note that circular arguments can be useful, particularly in models of
complex systems, as long as the circularity is clear and identified.)
My
16 matches
Mail list logo
