William, On 10/24/08, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I can't see a way to retrofit current systems to allow them to try out > a new kernel and revert to the previous one if the new one is worse > and malicious, without a human having to be involved.
Digging into my grab bag of long-abandoned technologies... 1. There are bidirectional macro assemblers, where you can write a system of macros to parse a high-level language, and which can run in reverse to disassemble machine code to produce high-level language. As you make new functionality and/or discover that old functionality needs to run faster, a change to the macros can make this all happen. This is then trivial to port to new computers, etc. 2. There is rewritable microcode along with smart microcode assemblers, effectively detaching the hardware from the software. 3. A trick found inside communications processors that is NOT found in stupid OS' like Windows, is the concept of chopping strings and such into bite-sized pieces and allocating all of memory in uniform bite-sized pieces, so that unused pieces can be immediately reused w/o garbage collection, etc. IMHO the answers are all out there, but will NOT come from uSoft or other sources that have no requirements for the functionality needed here. BTW, I have my own ideas about what is needed to write hypercomplex software, but I also understand that these are NOT the norm. A few of these include: 1. The need for a dual language interface, one of which looks a lot like an enhanced BASIC, and the other looks a lot like an enhanced COBOL. Programs wirtten in either can be listed in the other language format. 2. Co-routine support is CRUCIAL for real-world AI, that is, if you want to avoid slow multi-pass operation for just about everything. 3. 100% checking like in most of the .net languages is crucial, that is, if you ever want it to work. Of course, .net elimninated computed GoTo's, so it must be eliminated as a serious implementation language. 4. Chain-of-consciousness debugging, where significant do-something operations are noted while all other operations are performed silently. This allows even non-programmers to see just what is happening. Is this enough, or could someone here stand some more? Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- 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
