Mark, >>> For OpenCog we had to make a definite choice and we made one. Sorry >>> you don't agree w/ it. > > I agree that you had to make a choice and made the one that seemed right to > various reason. The above comment is rude and snarky however -- > particularly since it seems to come *because* you can't justify your > choice. I would expect better of you. > > = = = = = = = > > Let's try this again. Get your experts together and create a short list of > why C++ on Linux (and any infrastructure there that isn't immediately > available under .Net) is better than the combination of all the .Net > languages and all the infrastructure available there that isn't immediately > available under Linux. No resorting to pseudo-democracies of experts, how > about real reasons that YOU will stand behind and be willing to defend.
This would be a reasonable exercise, but I simply don't have time to deal with it right now. I'm about to leave on a 2.5 weeks business / research-collaboration trip to Asia, and en route I hope to make some progress on mutating Novamente docs into OpenCog docs. No time to burn on these arguments at the moment. However, it might be worthwhile to create a page on the OpenCog wiki focused on this issue, if others are also interested in it. There could be a section on the page arguing the potential advantages of .Net for OpenCog; a section on the page arguing the intended advantages of the current approach; and other sections written by folks advocating other approaches (e.g. LISP-centric, whatever...). Perhaps if you create this page and get it started w/ your own arguments, others will contribute theirs and we can advance the debate that way. -- Ben ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
