Yes, go for it! Are you going to try and translate Fortran or C to PicoLisp, or are you going full hog, and try to implement from scratch?
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Manuel Cano <manutalc...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you can choose, I don't know what are you waiting for... have fun! > > 2015-07-20 13:03 GMT+02:00 Amaury Hernández Águila <amhe...@gmail.com>: > >> Not using BLAS or LAPACK. >> >> 2015-07-20 3:53 GMT-07:00 Manuel Cano <manutalc...@gmail.com>: >> >>> What gives you more fun? >>> >>> 2015-07-20 12:18 GMT+02:00 Amaury Hernández Águila <amhe...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> I appreciate people who know the term "computational intelligence." >>>> PicoCI sounds good. >>>> >>>> I know that BLAS and LAPACK are battle-tested, but in that case I would >>>> just use other libraries in other programming languages (this is how I >>>> feel). I've been doing CI in common lisp using clml, mgl-gpr, mgl, and >>>> others, and I even have access to run my models in CUDA GPUs with my >>>> current setup. I'd like to see PilOS running CI in a near future, and >>>> without the dependencies on fortran's BLAS and LAPACK. >>>> >>>> I'm still open to constructive criticism. Should we take a purist >>>> approach or should we go the battle-tested safer route? >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-07-20 2:32 GMT-07:00 Robert Herman <rpjher...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> I would welcome the results of your efforts, and contribute where I >>>>> could, but I think it would be best to make calls to BLAS and LAPACK, >>>>> since >>>>> they are battle-tested. I am currently working my way through a book >>>>> 'Handbook of Neuroevolution through Erlang', but I prefer Lisp. Erlang is >>>>> just better at the fault tolerance, distributed thing. >>>>> Lush2 Lisp was used for heavy numerics, so you may want to look there >>>>> for some guidance, however the Sourceforge site is down at the moment
