On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Paul Homer <paul_ho...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> there is some underlying complexity tied to the functionality that > dictates that it could never be any less the X lines of code. The system > encapsulates a significant amount of information, and stealing from Shannon > slightly, it cannot be represented in any less bits. > A valid question might be: how much of this information should be represented in code? How much should instead be heuristically captured by generic machine learning techniques, indeterminate STM solvers, or stability models? I can think of much functionality today for control systems, configurations, UIs, etc. that would be better (more adaptive, reactive, flexible) achieved through generic mechanisms. Sure, there is a "minimum number of bits" to represent information in the system, but code is a measure of human effort, not information in general. > > If things are expanding then they have to get more complex, they encompass > more. > Complexity can be measured by number of possible states or configurations, and in that sense things do get more complex as they scale. But they don't need to become more *complicated*. The underlying structure can become simpler, more uniform, especially compared to what we have today. Regards, David -- bringing s-words to a pen fight
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
