I think some AI proponents would *like* to say something like "Any sufficiently advanced data processing application written in a non-X language will contain an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of X" for some X.
For example, we might (boldly) claim that any sufficiently advanced database management system contains half of prolog. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be any claim of this form that is highly convincing. :) No universal language of AI. However, there are many common patterns which can be consolidated in frameworks, such as a need for matching... just no patterns needed by *all* approaches... On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Juan Carlos Kuri Pinto <[email protected]>wrote: > Greenspun's tenth rule: Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program > contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation > of half of Common Lisp. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_tenth_rule > > Greenspun's eleventh rule: Any sufficiently parallel program written in a > non-purely functional programming language, like C, Assembler, Java, Lisp, > Scheme, and OCaml, contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, > slow implementation of half of Haskell. > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/7190161-766c6f07> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
