No, I'm not looking for programming language features. I'm look for a term that describes a certain class of applications. Here's a revised version of what I wrote a couple of messages ago.
Let me bring this back to where I started with this. You may recall that a while ago I was talking about what I wanted in an ideal agent-based modeling system. I have been thinking about Drools as a starting point. One of the things I like about Drools is that it is a forward chaining system that supports (a) a workspace that can contain arbitrary Java objects along with (b) rules that operate on those objects. I find that very attractive because it allows new primitives to be added at any time (because there is no constraint on what can be in the workspace) while at the same time providing a reasonable framework (forward chaining rules) for logical reasoning and condition-action style agent operations. I want a term that describes this sort of openness. In my clumsy attempts to describe it, the closest parallel I've found seems to be a general Genetic Algorithm system. The population, genetic operators, and fitness function are all left open. The parallel is that the GA population plays a role similar to the Drools workspace and the GA genetic operators and fitness function play a role similar to the Drools rules. In both cases we have an application (not a programming language or collection of programming language features) that implements a framework of operations. These are (a) forward chaining reasoning for Drools and (b) genetic algorithm evolution. These two operational frameworks don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. What is important and similar is that in both cases, these frameworks are two steps away from a collection of arbitrary Java objects: the workspace and the population. In both cases functions are provided by the user to operate on those objects. Those functions are the rules in the case of Drools and the genetic operators and fitness function in the case of a GA. The GA and Drools provides a specific and useful framework within which the user-provided functions operate on the user provided objects. I want a term that captures that sort of operational framework. -- Russ On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Birchard Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > Doug, > > True, but now we have boatloads of RAM to fill - he he he. > Garbage collection remains a real problem whenever it is included in a > language implementation. I've been working in C#/.NET lately and I would > venture to say that there is as much "bookkeeping" involved as there was > with pointers and explicit destructors; only now, one must learn an entirely > new set of rule and MS generated foibles. > > I wonder if what Russ really wants is an architecture of abstract classes > that use a wide variety of interfaces and concrete classes to provide the > palette of functions, i.e. an aggregate of abstractions, to provide enough > variability in behavior at runtime. That could be done in C++ (STL) with > Policy Based Templates and a few other patterns; lot's of heavy lifting > though. > > -Birch > > -- > > "When I am working on a problem, > I never think about beauty but when I have finished, > if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." > - > Buckminster Fuller > > **** Use of advanced messaging technology does not imply **** > ***** an endorsement of western industrial civilization ***** > > > > > On Sep 7, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > > Birch, > > Written like a true computer scientist. I lived in a LISP world for a > happy period between, say '85 - '90. > > But then the real-world encroached, and C++ began to become the only > realistic way to implement large ABMS of complex systems. LISP was nice, > but the virtual machine and garbage collection made it a non-player in the > modern HPC computing arena. > > --Doug > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Birchard Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Okay Russ, >> >> There are several options to chose from, depending on just how adaptive >> you'd like the functionality to be. >> >> LISP (Scheme, et alia): Allows for partial instantiation or "currying." >> This mechanism allows your program to build functions out of little pieces >> of text and then call _eval()_ on them when completed. LISP uses a list for >> a generic structure but does not infer type until you use something. Thus >> you could have a collection of objects that were all completely different >> with functionality created on the fly. >> >> Javascript: Which, it turns out is a functional language; makes functions >> first class objects and allows appending objects or replacing their methods >> at run-time. I believe there is a native "Collection" structure but one >> could be written if there is not. Javascript also has an _eval()_ function, >> so partial instantiation is possible. >> >> Java (and, to an extent, C++): Allow for Collections of heterogeneous >> objects, although the language is strongly typed and will try to dissuade >> the programmer from being too abstract. The smoothest way to apply >> different behavior is through interfaces, keeping in mind that each class >> can implement the interface however it chooses. The drawback here is that >> the interfaces must be concrete at compile time and I don't know of an easy >> way to modify them at runtime (I'm sure that it can be done but requires >> more work than the other two options.) The STL has _functors_, generally >> for comparison but could be extended, which can be called on arbitrary >> classes iffi those classes provide the requisite methods the functor needs. >> One would iterate over a Collection and apply the functor to each object, >> or each pair. However, even with cool stuff like Policy Based Templates >> (LOKI Libraries, Alexandrescu et al.) I think that compile time type >> checking will make things less flexible than you desire.) I haven't looked >> for functors in Java, but I imagine they are there or could be created. >> Additionally, Java has lent itself to the "new" paradigm of _Aspect >> Oriented Programming_ which I have not played with very much, but I >> understand that functionality can be cross-cut across classes and assembled >> at runtime but I would think that it would still be pretty strongly typed. >> >> IMHO, LISP and its bretheren fit what you seek although Javascript >> potentially offers fertile ground and may be easier to integrate with Java. >> >> As for a single term to describe this, I still like Data Structure but >> that's probably being purist and I could get behind active structure. >> >> -Birch >> >> -- >> >> "Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong >> reasons." >> ~R. Buckminster Fuller >> >> **** Use of advanced messaging technology does not imply **** >> ***** an endorsement of western industrial civilization ***** >> >> >> >> >> On Sep 7, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: >> >> Let me bring this back to where I started with this. You may recall that a >> while ago I was talking about what I wanted in an ideal agent-based modeling >> system. I have been thinking about as a starting point. One of the things I >> like about Drools is that it is a forward chaining system that supports a >> workspace that can contain arbitrary Java objects along with rules that >> operate on those objects. I find that very attractive because it allows new >> primitives to be added at any time while at the same time providing a >> reasonable framework for logical operations. >> >> I wanted a term that would describe this sort of openness. >> >> As I've been attempting to describe it, the closest comparison seems to be >> to a general Genetic Algorithm system in which the population, genetic >> operators, and fitness function are all left open. The analogy is that the >> GA population plays a role similar to the Drools workspace and the GA >> genetic operators and fitness function plays a role similar to the Drools >> rules. >> >> I was looking for a term that would capture the sort of operational >> framework within which the lowest level objects and operations were left >> open while the framework implemented some higher level functionality in >> terms of those objects and operations. >> >> -- Russ >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Birch - >>> >>>> I thought Container as well (although Bag leapt to mind too) but Russ >>>> decided against so all that was left was the more abstract descriptor. >>>> Besides, LISP has a data structure or two and underlying types, loosely >>>> defined but they are there - IMHO "Data Structure" is neither procedural, >>>> declarative, nor functional. >>>> >>> Of course. >>> >>> I merely have my face being rubbed in this right now cuz I'm the >>> old-school C programmer working with some new-school C++ kids who don't >>> really even know what a Struct is... They will create a Class when a >>> Struct is what they really need. >>> Since I grew up in the early days of Knuth's Art of Computer Programming >>> (when you were still in a Brooklyn grammar school beating up honor-roll >>> students for their lunch money)... I tend to the Procedural view of >>> things... I learned all the Applicative and Object Oriented and >>> Concatenative ( In my NeWS days) languages offered up to me in the g(l)ory >>> days. I have loved my Snobol and APL and Prolog and PostScript (*as a >>> programming language!*) and Objective C and Java and loved to hate LISP and >>> Haskell and Simula, and made peace with C++, but at heart, I love the >>> half-step of abstraction from hardware that good ole C provides. It's a >>> goddamn bit processing machine, gimme some register variables and an easy >>> way to do bit-shifts and I'll build the rest from raw stock! >>> >>>> Of course due to my current work situation I am drawn to "bring me a >>>> rock" like a moth to the flame. >>>> >>> Does this mean you are avoiding deadlines? Or just so morbidly >>> fascinated with all things work-related that answering enelucidable riddles >>> is like mother's milk? >>> >>>> >>>> I have a bottle of Irish Whiskey to replenish yours and Bourbon is >>>> always good (rot gut or not) but you know that I can't condone burning >>>> books >>>> for any reason! >>>> >>> Yes, I believe we did do some damage to a bottle of Jamesons last time >>> you were over. And I don't need you to condone the burning of books, but >>> that doesn't mean you can't warm your hands by the woodstove while *I* do. >>> The real sin would be to use good whiskey as an accellerant (for the >>> combustion, not the attitude). >>> >>>> >>>> -Birch >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > > > -- > Doug Roberts > [email protected] > [email protected] > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
