On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Carl Tollander c...@plektyx.com wrote:
What was the client's problem again?
Darned if I can tell, this Universal Interface Language seems to have no
document attached to it.
The video from OOPSLA,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521,
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 01:32:01PM -0600, Roger Critchlow wrote:
I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have C++
in mind.
-- rec --
Is that a bit like?:
If God invented marathons to keep people from doing anything more
stupid, the triathlon must have taken Him
Robert being dangerously inquisitive
Coincidence? Or perhaps Stephen has some some sinister motive
it's all coming together -- Just a few more CPUs and the plot will be
ready. muahaa haaa ... :-)
I'm curious what you are trying to model that requires 10^15 agents.
We're not trying
Doug,
Some short answers, we can discuss further some time if
interested.
First: the technical reasons C++ was not considered OO =
strong typing, friend declarations, multiple inheritance,
explicit constructors, and an over-dependence on function
overrides.
Second: subtler, but in my opinion
Hey, thanks Dave.
A couple of comments:
In contrast - the OO tradition that began with Simula (not Simula I which
was already moving away from the philosophical ideal) and was embodied in
Self and Smalltalk, did not care about the machine, did not care about
efficiency, it was all about
A snark sash can *never* be too heavy!
;-}
Do I still get to keep my OO Merit Badge?
sure, but more to the point, you get another gold star added to your
glibness sash... isn't that thing getting kinda heavy?
nicely done.
--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
Douglas Roberts wrote:
A snark sash can *never* be too heavy!
Snarf!
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Doug/Dave/innocent bystanders -
Actually, this exchange is more useful to me than most I've seen on
this topic.
As usual, I understand both sides of the argument and agree with
neither!
Or to be contrary, I agree with both. I appreciate the elegance of
representation that well-designed
That's what we keep you around for, big guy!
Cheers, yourself.
--Doug
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote:
Neither has been the usual raving fanatic I am used to,
- Steve
--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 - Office
Douglas Roberts wrote:
To some, I suppose lack of efficiency and the ability to implement
pure, faithful representations of the physical system being modeled
are positive attributes of a language.
Therefore, 100% faithfulness of representation of the physical system
is not only not needed, it
I don't disagree with any of that, Marcus. I do feel compelled to point out
that garbage collectors are extremely heavy weight language components, and
are one of the features of Java that prevent it from competing with C++ for
large-scale computational efficiency.
--Doug
On Mon, May 25, 2009
On May 24, 2009, at 10:05 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
Steve wrote:
To better describe agent-oriented, I would like to extend an
object to:
1)
2)
3) have control over its own execution
4)
5)
Typically garbage collectors observe for objects that are isolated
from
I actually had a fairly long talk with Bjarne Stroustrup while
building an UI Toolkit out of (would you believe) PostScript for the
NeWS (Network Extensible Window System). We had realized that PS
really was, like Javascript, a very lisp-like language and so
prototyped (pun intended for
Stephen Guerin wrote:
Ah, by control over its own execution, I meant execution as thread
of computation.
Yeah, I realize the word was overloaded.. See my other e-mail on not
being able to predictably get resources. (Scheduling a thread is does
not imply actually commencing execution.)
Here
I believe that under optimal conditions (from the perspective of the garbage
collecting language) a benchmark can be contrived that equals malloc. I
also believe that the converse is true, especially for large applications.
I cannot count the times I have had to reboot a LISP machine or kill a
Douglas Roberts wrote:
I believe that under optimal conditions (from the perspective of the
garbage collecting language) a benchmark can be contrived that equals
malloc.
If a person can plan out a workset that is minimal and needed all of the
time, then it won't need to be moved around
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.comwrote:
A person prototyping code for a new problem doesn't yet have whole thing in
their head, so they don't want to commit to decisions like global sharing of
data. malloc/free is undesirable in that situation because
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Carl Tollander c...@plektyx.com wrote:
So a 'real world' application is one you never quite have enough memory and
power for?
Yeah, pretty much.
First you build a model that approximates the system you want to model.
Then you realize that there are features
Ok, so now that we have our trip down OOP Memory Land out of the way, a few
questions:
1) What are the agents in this 1.0E^6 agent simulation?
2) What are the rules that define how they interact?
3) What are the communications requirements between agents?
4) What is the compute infrastructure?
OK... It is all I can do to avoid a segue into Soylent Green analogies...
- SS
But yes, given the other meaning of execution, I agree with you with
respect to how to probably handle the death and garbage collection. I
suspect we might adopt more of an cellular apotosis model
Doug -
Isn't this fun? We could probably go on like this this all day!
I was never a Boy Scout, but from what I remember anecdotally, once one
has their merit badge, it cannot be taken away (though they can be
stolen and clandestinely resewn onto ones own sash)...
Yet I think there are
Carl Tollander wrote:
So a 'real world' application is one you never quite have enough
memory and power for?
THAT has been my experience categorically.
Well said.
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at
Thus finally proving the existence of parallel worlds.
Now if we could just find the wormhole...
On May 25, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
In addition, a real world application is one that the client can't
adequately describe, but which needs to be done in half the time and
with
On May 25, 2009, at 5:56 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Ok, so now that we have our trip down OOP Memory Land out of the
way, a few questions:
1) What are the agents in this 1.0E^6 agent simulation?
We're not designing a simulation. We're trying to architect for a
distributed agent-oriented
Stephen Guerin wrote:
4) What is the compute infrastructure?
Existing web/ftp servers, browsers and applications running on client
machines.
2 ideas:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
http://www.playstation.com/life/en/aboutch.html
Alice (aka Tory) -
Thus finally proving the existence of parallel worlds.
Now if we could just find the wormhole...
I believe you found one when you joined this list, though it might be
somewhat more of a Rabbit Hole?
- Mad Hatter
P.S. does that make Doug the Red Queen and Stephen the White
and here's a couple more ideas:
http://www.google.com/search?q=distributed+computing+javascript+browser
2009/5/26 Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com
Stephen Guerin wrote:
4) What is the compute infrastructure?
Existing web/ftp servers, browsers and applications running on client
Saul Caganoff wrote:
and here's a couple more ideas:
http://www.google.com/search?q=distributed+computing+javascript+browser
To take a significant amount of CPU time from a user, especially in the
background, it will be necessary to ask for opt-in. Publishing
JavaScript to run as a side
So a few of us are exploring new ways of constructing scalable
distributed agent systems and are playing around with architecting a
first instantiation in either Javascript or in Smalltalk. We are
interested in architecting a system that grow and evolve without
collapsing on the weight of
Steve,
Can you please define what you mean by scalable? Up to 10,000 agents?
100,000? 350,000,000? 6E^9?
How heavy are the agents to be?
than all of the above?
--Doug
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Stephen Guerin
stephen.gue...@redfish.comwrote:
So a few of us are exploring new ways
Can you please define what you mean by scalable? Up to 10,000
agents? 100,000? 350,000,000? 6E^9?
How heavy are the agents to be?
than all of the above?
Scalable eventually to on the order of a million agents per Internet-
connected device. An order of magnitude less for mobile phones
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.net wrote:
Interesting. Other issues that will come to play with an ABM of the
intended scales you describe are synchronization of the various asynchronous
distributed components, message passing latency, and message passing
Not to digress, but Dave kind of lost me one day at a FRIAM when he said
C++ is not object oriented. I didn't really know what he meant, because
I've been using C++ for about 20 years now to accomplish polymorphism via
object inheritance, containment, and method specialization (with and without
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 06:35:36PM -0600, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Not to digress, but Dave kind of lost me one day at a FRIAM when he said
C++ is not object oriented. I didn't really know what he meant, because
I've been using C++ for about 20 years now to accomplish polymorphism via
object
Interesting that you'd say OO C++ is hard to debug. With the proper tools,
I've found it as easy as, well, interpreted LISP. Now distributed message
passing code, on the other hand, is hard to debug. I don't care what
language it was written in. The proper tools, like TotalView help a lot,
but
What I mean by pure OO C++ is full blown patterns implemented using
dynamic polymorphism etc, etc. You go through about 3 or 4 layers of
indirection via abstract classes to go from caller to callee. You need
6-8 windows open on the screen just to understand what some bit of
code is doing. And yes,
When I wrote:
This would be more for authoring and deploying many smaller-scale
applications written with an agent-oriented perspective. What Dave
West talks about when he refers to how object-orientation was
originally conceived not how current object-oriented programming is
done. This is
Oregon just passed an assisted suicide law...
To better describe agent-oriented, I would like to extend an object to:
1)
2)
3) have control over its own execution
4)
5)
Do I still get to keep my OO Merit Badge?
--
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
505-455-7333 -
Douglas Roberts wrote:
Oregon just passed an assisted suicide law...
To better describe agent-oriented, I would like to extend an
object to:
1)
2)
3) have control over its own execution
4)
5)
Typically garbage collectors observe for objects that are
Stephen Guerin wrote:
3) have control over its own execution
Because resources are finite, an object can only seek resources, e.g.
through scheduling protocols for a resource or through growth and
reproduction. Agents don't have free will any more than we do. :-)
I'm curious what you are trying to model that requires 10^15 agents. I just
typed this number into WolframAlpha and got:
~~ 50 x the number of red blood cells in the human body (~~ 2x10^13)
... in other words the number of red blood cells in the FRIAM mailing list
(give or take).
Coincidence?
41 matches
Mail list logo
