If you treat computing that reverently, you'll never improve it.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Carl Gundel <[email protected]> wrote: > Design systems that are more efficient than life? More efficient in what > ways, for what purposes? For the purposes of computing? Can we define > what computing should become? We are only touching the hem of the garment, > I think. ;-)**** > > ** ** > > -Carl**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *David Barbour > *Sent:* Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:05 AM > > *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing > *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?**** > > ** ** > > Life is, in some ways, less "messy" than binary. At least less fragile. > DNA cannot encode absolute offsets, for example. Closer to associative > memory.**** > > In any case, we want to reach useful solutions quickly. Life doesn't > evolve at a scale commensurate with human patience, despite having vastly > more parallelism and memory. So we need to design systems more efficient, > and perhaps more specialized, than life.**** > > On Sep 4, 2013 5:37 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > John, you're right. I have seen raw binary used as DNA and I left that > out. This could be my own prejudice, but it seems like a messy way to do > things. I suppose I want to limit what the animal can do by constraining it > to some set of "safe" primitives. Maybe that's a silly thing to worry > about, though. If we're going to grow software, I suppose maybe I should > expect the process to be as messy as life is:)**** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM, John Carlson <[email protected]> wrote:** > ** > > I meant to say you could perform and record operations while the program > was running.**** > > I think people have missed machine language as "syntaxless."**** > > On Sep 4, 2013 4:17 PM, "John Carlson" <[email protected]> wrote:**** > > > On Sep 3, 2013 8:25 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > > It yields a kind of "syntaxlessness" that's interesting.**** > > Our TWB/TE language was mostly syntaxless. Instead, you performed > operations on desktop objects that were recorded (like AppleScript, but > with an iconic language). You could even record while the program was > running. We had a tiny bit of syntax in our predicates, stuff like range > and set notation.**** > > Can anyone describe Minecraft's syntax and semantics?**** > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > CALIFORNIA**** > > H U M A N**** > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc**** > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
