On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Russel, in what capacity do you use that language? > > In all capacities, for both hand written and machine generated content.
Why mix AI-written code and your own code? > >> Where primitive operations come from? > > An appropriately chosen subset of the Lisp primitives. I meant: where the need for primitives come from? What determines the choice of primitive operations you need? >> From >> what you described, depending on the answers, it looks like a simple >> hand-written lambda-calculus-like language with interpreter might be >> better than a real lisp with all its bells and whistles. > > Yes, that's an intuitively appealing idea, which is why I started off > there. But it turns out there is no natural boundary; the simple > interpreted language always ends up needing more features until one is > forced to acknowledge that it does, in fact, have to be a full > programming language. Furthermore, much of the runtime ends up being > spent in the object language; while machine efficiency isn't important > enough to spend project resources implementing a compiler, given that > other people have already implemented highly optimizing Lisp > compilers, it's advantageous to use them. > You can always compile your own language into an existing language where there's an existing optimizing compiler. Needing many different features just doesn't look like a natural thing for AI-generated programs. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
