> > Impressive. But with Turing complete models, the ability to build a > system is not a good measure of distance. How much discipline (best > practices, boiler-plate, self-constraint) and foresight (or up-front > design) would it take to develop and use your system directly from a pure > actors model?
I don't know the answer to that yet. You've highlighted really good questions that a "pure" actor model system would have to answer (and I added a few). I believe they were: - composition - decomposition - consistency - discovery - persistence - runtime update - garbage collection - process control - configuration partitioning - partial failure - inlining? (optimization) - mirroring? (optimization) - interactions - safety - security - progress - extensibility - antifragility - message reliability - actor persistence Did I miss any? On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:29 PM, David Barbour <dmbarb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Tristan Slominski < > tristan.slomin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think we don't know whether time exists in the first place. >> > > That only matters to people who want "as close to the Universe as > possible". > > To the rare scientist who is not also a philosopher, it only matters > whether time is effective for describing and predicting behavior about the > universe, and the same is true for notions of particles, waves, energy, > entropy, etc.. > > I believe our world is 'synchronous' in the sense of things happening at >>> the same time in different places... >> >> >> It seems to me that you are describing a privileged frame of reference. >> > > How is it privileged? > > Would you consider your car mechanic to have a 'privileged' frame of > reference on our universe because he can look down at your vehicle's engine > and recognize when components are in or out of synch? Is it not obviously > the case that, even while out of synch, the different components are still > doing things at the same time? > > Is there any practical or scientific merit for your claim? I believe there > is abundant scientific and practical merit to models and technologies > involving multiple entities or components moving and acting at the same > time. > > >> >> I've built a system that does what you mention is difficult above. It >> incorporates autopoietic and allopoietic properties, enables object >> capability security and has hints of antifragility, all guided by the actor >> model of computation. >> > > Impressive. But with Turing complete models, the ability to build a > system is not a good measure of distance. How much discipline (best > practices, boiler-plate, self-constraint) and foresight (or up-front > design) would it take to develop and use your system directly from a pure > actors model? > > > > I don't want programming to be easier than physics. Why? First, this >> implies that physics is somehow difficult, and that there ought to be a >> better way. >> > > Physics is difficult. More precisely: setting up physical systems to > compute a value or accomplish a task is very difficult. Measurements are > noisy. There are many non-obvious interactions (e.g. heat, vibration, > covert channels). There are severe spatial constraints, locality > constraints, energy constraints. It is very easy for things to 'go wrong'. > > Programming should be easier than physics so it can handle higher levels > of complexity. I'm not suggesting that programming should violate physics, > but programs shouldn't be subject to the same noise and overhead. If we had > to think about adding fans and radiators to our actor configurations to > keep them cool, we'd hardly get anything done. > > I hope you aren't so hypocritical as to claim that 'programming shouldn't > be easier than physics' in one breath then preach 'use actors' in another. > Actors are already an enormous simplification from physics. It even > simplifies away the media for communication. > > > > Whatever happened to the pursuit of "Maxwell's equations for Computer >> Science"? "Simple" is not the same as "easy". >> > > "Simple" is also not the same as "physics". > > Maxwell's equations are a metaphor that we might apply to a specific model > or semantics. Maxwell's equations describe a set of invariants and > relationships between properties. If you want such equations, you'll > generally need to design your model to achieve them. > > On this forum, 'Nile' is sometimes proffered as an example of the power of > equational reasoning, but is a domain specific model. > > >> >> if we (literally, you and I in our bodies communicating via the Internet) >> did not get here through composition, integration, open extension and >> abstraction, then I don't know how to make a better argument to demonstrate >> those properties are a part of physics and layering on top of it >> > > Do you even have an argument that we are here through composition, > integration, open extension, and abstraction? I'm a bit lost as to what > that would even mean unless you're liberally reinterpreting the words. > > In any case, it doesn't matter whether physics has these properties, only > whether they're accessible to a programmer. It is true that any programming > model must be implemented within physics, of course, but that's not the > layer exposed to the programmers. > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
