On May 26, 2008, at 5:52 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
That you have less than a two-to-one market share and it's dwindling?
I have ~100% market share. Not sure how it is two-to-one or
dwindling, though I suppose it has nowhere to go but down.
That technically .Net has blown past you and the
On May 1, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your model above tacitly predicates its optimality on a naive MCP
strategy, but is not particularly well-suited for it. In short, this
means that you are assuming that the aggregate latency
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by sane languages . . . .
- Original Message -
From: Lukasz Stafiniak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] More Info Please
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Mark Waser
mark,
What I'd rather do instead is see if we can get a .NET parallel track
started over the next few months, see if we can get everything ported, and
see the relative productivity between the two paths. That would provide a
provably true answer to the debate.
Well, it's an open-source
Regarding the best language for AGI development, most here know that I'm using
Java in Texai. For skill acquisition, my strategy is to have Texai acquire a
skill by composing a Java program to perform the learned skill. I hope that
the algorithmic (e.g. Java statement operation) knowledge
2008/5/26 J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Europe specifically excludes .NET as a development target for similar
pragmatic reasons. And developing .NET is going to suck on a non-Windows
workstation, eliminating one of the major advantages you tout. To be honest,
I do not know of anyone that
VRRM - Virtual Reinforcement Resource Managing Machine
Overview
This is a virtual machine designed to allow non-catastrophic
unconstrained experimentation of programs in a system as close to the
hardware as possible. This should allow the system to change as much
as is possible and needed for
:-) While I've read both papers, I was referring to the same paper that you
were. I remember what started the thread. What is your important
postscript?
- Original Message -
From: Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 7:52 PM
I deliberately used specifiers such as
a bit or sufficiently to imply relation with the problem and not
with other languages, that is to show why I think it's adequate for
the task, not that it's optimal.
Why go with adequate when optimal is available? Aren't you the one who is
concerned with
Where do you live, if you do not mind me asking? The preference for
server environments is very much a local phenomenon. Using California as
an example, in Los Angeles there is a strong preference for Windows
systems, but in Silicon Valley you will find that Unix is pervasive.
I live in
Mark,
If it were possible to make both C# and C+ versions of the core
(AtomTable and scheduler), and have both C# and C++ MindAgents run on
both, then we would have a favorable situation in terms of allowing
everyone to use their own fave languages and development environments.
-- Ben G
On
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what is the value proposition of Java over any other language? It has
no unique features. It's development is lagging. It's developers are
defecting (again, look at the statistics). It's fragmenting just like Unix
so
While all the language wars continue, I'd like to re-emphasize my original
point (directly copied from the original e-mail) -- One of the things that I've
been tempted to argue for a while is an entirely alternate underlying software
architecture for OpenCog -- people can then develop in the
That list wasn't about the comparison with .NET, I only added a couple
of words about .NET at the end. I deliberately used specifiers such as
a bit or sufficiently to imply relation with the problem and not
with other languages, that is to show why I think it's adequate for
the task, not that it's
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 8:33 PM, J. Andrew Rogers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Replying to myself,
I'll let Mark have the last word since, after all, it is *his* project and
not mine. :-)
I assume that last sentence was sarcastic ;-)
Of course, while Mark is a valued participant in OpenCog, it's
How is Java is *more* clear and understandable?
The IDE is *known* to be inferior. Are you arguing otherwise.
Every modern language has garbage collection.
Java has a functional programming stance? No, it does not. Look at what
you can do in the newest version of C# much less F#. If you
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'd rather do instead is see if we can get a .NET parallel track
started over the next few months, see if we can get everything ported, and
see the relative productivity between the two paths. That would provide a
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Stephen Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding the best language for AGI development, most here know that I'm
using Java in Texai. For skill acquisition, my strategy is to have Texai
acquire a skill by composing a Java program to perform the learned skill. I
Good luck on your trip!
Personally, I would rather start a debate page on virtually *anything* else.
I will start a couple on other AGI issues elsewhere but language debates
just aren't worth the time because most people have virulent opinions
without the requisite knowledge to support them
J. Andrew Rogers said:
For open source projects, ideal environments play
second fiddle to broad language support. Painless portability is the
reason C is often selected over C++ for open source projects --
universality is that important.
J. Andrew Rogers
Josh,
Thank you very much for the pointers (and replying so rapidly).
You're very right that people misinterpret and over-extrapolate econ and
game
theory, but when properly understood and applied, they are a valuable tool
for analyzing the forces shaping the further evolution of AGIs and
On Monday 26 May 2008 06:55:48 am, Mark Waser wrote:
The problem with accepted economics and game theory is that in a proper
scientific sense, they actually prove very little and certainly far, FAR
less than people extrapolate them to mean (or worse yet, prove).
Abusus non tollit usum.
One of my major points that we've lost in all this is that *every* piece
should have clean, well-specified interfaces and APIs such that the language
of one piece really shouldn't have an effect on the language of another.
C++ runs just fine under .Net (albeit as unmanaged code).
If I were to
23 matches
Mail list logo
