Structural optimisation is not compression. Lurk more. Julian
On 28/02/2012, at 3:38 PM, BGB wrote: > granted, I remain a little skeptical. > > I think there is a bit of a difference though between, say, a log table, and > a typical piece of software. > a log table is, essentially, almost pure redundancy, hence why it can be > regenerated on demand. > > a typical application is, instead, a big pile of logic code for a wide range > of behaviors and for dealing with a wide range of special cases. > > > "executable math" could very well be functionally equivalent to a "highly > compressed" program, but note in this case that one needs to count both the > size of the "compressed" program, and also the size of the program needed to > "decompress" it (so, the size of the system would also need to account for > the compiler and runtime). > > although there is a fair amount of redundancy in typical program code (logic > that is often repeated, duplicated effort between programs, ...), > eliminating this redundancy would still have a bounded reduction in total > size. > > increasing abstraction is likely to, again, be ultimately bounded (and, > often, abstraction differs primarily in form, rather than in essence, from > that of moving more of the system functionality into library code). > > > much like with data compression, the concept commonly known as the "Shannon > limit" may well still apply (itself setting an upper limit to how much is > expressible within a given volume of code). _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
