Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals? Jonathan From: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Cc: Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? Hi Dan It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months. Cheers, Alan -- *From:* Dan Melchione dm.f...@melchione.com *To:* fonc@vpri.org *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Hi Jonathan We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on burning issues and better directions in computing. Cheers, Alan From: Jonathan Edwards edwa...@csail.mit.edu To: fonc@vpri.org Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals? Jonathan From: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Cc: Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? Hi Dan It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months. Cheers, Alan From: Dan Melchione dm.f...@melchione.com To: fonc@vpri.org Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Hi Kevin
At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and get the
report on the Viewpoints server.
Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will
probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project would
be to do Nile in the Chrome Native Client to get a usable speedy and very
compact graphics system for web based systems.)
Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of Javascript,
and we've been learning a lot about this variant of stream-based FRP as it is
able to work within someone else's implementation of a language.
A lot of work on the cooperating solvers part of STEPS is going on (this was
an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original proposal).
We are taking another pass at the interoperating alien modules problem that
was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around to
trying to make progress on it.
And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated end-user
systems (especially including children) with the deep systems projects, and
we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.
A fair amount of time is being put into problem finding (the basic idea is
that initially trying to manifest visions of desirable future states is
better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good visions will
often help problem finding which can then be the context for picking actual
goals).
And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments for
research.
Cheers
Alan
From: Kevin Driedger linuxbox+f...@gmail.com
To: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com; Fundamentals of New Computing
fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Alan,
Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?
]{evin ])riedger
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Dan
It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but
needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider
scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for
the last 5-6 months.
Cheers,
Alan
From: Dan Melchione dm.f...@melchione.com
To: fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or
put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
So what will computing be in a hundred years?
Will we still painstakingly construct systems with a keyboard interface one
letter at a time ?
And what systems will we use ? And for what ?
Will we use computers for slashing virtual fruits and post images of our
breakfast on Facebook version 1000,2 ?
What are the future man using computers for ?
Karl
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Kevin
At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and
get the report on the Viewpoints server.
Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will
probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project
would be to do Nile in the Chrome Native Client to get a usable speedy
and very compact graphics system for web based systems.)
Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of
Javascript, and we've been learning a lot about this variant of
stream-based FRP as it is able to work within someone else's
implementation of a language.
A lot of work on the cooperating solvers part of STEPS is going on (this
was an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original proposal).
We are taking another pass at the interoperating alien modules problem
that was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around
to trying to make progress on it.
And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated
end-user systems (especially including children) with the deep systems
projects, and we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.
A fair amount of time is being put into problem finding (the basic idea
is that initially trying to manifest visions of desirable future states
is better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good
visions will often help problem finding which can then be the context for
picking actual goals).
And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments for
research.
Cheers
Alan
--
*From:* Kevin Driedger linuxbox+f...@gmail.com
*To:* Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com; Fundamentals of New Computing
fonc@vpri.org
*Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
*Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Alan,
Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?
]{evin ])riedger
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Dan
It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
time for the last 5-6 months.
Cheers,
Alan
--
*From:* Dan Melchione dm.f...@melchione.com
*To:* fonc@vpri.org
*Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
*Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
We will have singularity and real AI? We may indeed, or perhaps the last 50
years will replay itself. Progress in artificial intelligence has moved along
at a fraction of expectations.
I expect that there will be an incredible increase of eye candy, and when you
strip it down to the bottom there will still be languages derived from Java, C,
Python, BASIC, etc.
-Carl
From: fonc-boun...@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-boun...@vpri.org] On Behalf Of David
Barbour
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
what will computing be in a hundred years?
We'll have singularity - i.e. software and technology will be developed by AIs.
But there will also be a lot of corporate influence on which direction that
goes; there will likely be repeated conflicts regarding privacy, ownership,
computational rights, the issue of 'patents' and 'copyrights' in a world with
high-quality 3D printers, high quality scanners, and AI-created technologies.
As always, big companies with deep pockets will hang on through legal actions,
lobbying, lashing out at the people and suppressing what some people will argue
to be rights or freedoms.
Computing will be much more widespread. Sensors and interactive elements will
be ubiquitous in our environments, whether we like them or not. (Already, a
huge portion of the population carries a multi-purpose sensor device...
smartphone. Later, they'll be out of the pockets, on the heads, active all the
time.) Before singularity, we'll be able to program on-the-fly, while walking
around, using augmented reality, gestures or words, even pen-and-paper [1].
After singularity, programming will be aided heavily by AI even when we want to
write our own. Mr. Clippy might have more street smarts and degrees than you.
And, yeah, we'll have lots of video games. Procedural generation is already a
thing - creating worlds larger than any human could. With AI support, we can
actually create on-the-fly, creative content - e.g. like a team of dungeon live
masters dedicated to keeping the story interesting, and keeping you on the
border between addicted and terrified (or whatever experience the game designer
decides for you).
Best,
Dave
[1]
http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/programming-with-augmented-reality/
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM, karl ramberg karlramb...@gmail.com wrote:
So what will computing be in a hundred years?
Will we still painstakingly construct systems with a keyboard interface one
letter at a time ?
And what systems will we use ? And for what ?
Will we use computers for slashing virtual fruits and post images of our
breakfast on Facebook version 1000,2 ?
What are the future man using computers for ?
Karl
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Kevin
At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and get the
report on the Viewpoints server.
Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will
probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project would
be to do Nile in the Chrome Native Client to get a usable speedy and very
compact graphics system for web based systems.)
Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of Javascript,
and we've been learning a lot about this variant of stream-based FRP as it is
able to work within someone else's implementation of a language.
A lot of work on the cooperating solvers part of STEPS is going on (this was
an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original proposal).
We are taking another pass at the interoperating alien modules problem that
was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around to
trying to make progress on it.
And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated end-user
systems (especially including children) with the deep systems projects, and
we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.
A fair amount of time is being put into problem finding (the basic idea is
that initially trying to manifest visions of desirable future states is
better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good visions will
often help problem finding which can then be the context for picking actual
goals).
And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments for
research.
Cheers
Alan
_
From: Kevin Driedger linuxbox+f...@gmail.com
mailto:linuxbox%2bf...@gmail.com
To: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com; Fundamentals of New Computing
fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Alan,
Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?
]{evin ])riedger
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
what will computing be in a hundred years?
We'll have singularity - i.e. software and technology will be developed by
AIs. But there will also be a lot of corporate influence on which direction
that goes; there will likely be repeated conflicts regarding privacy,
ownership, computational rights, the issue of 'patents' and 'copyrights' in
a world with high-quality 3D printers, high quality scanners, and
AI-created technologies. As always, big companies with deep pockets will
hang on through legal actions, lobbying, lashing out at the people and
suppressing what some people will argue to be rights or freedoms.
Computing will be much more widespread. Sensors and interactive elements
will be ubiquitous in our environments, whether we like them or not.
(Already, a huge portion of the population carries a multi-purpose sensor
device... smartphone. Later, they'll be out of the pockets, on the heads,
active all the time.) Before singularity, we'll be able to program
on-the-fly, while walking around, using augmented reality, gestures or
words, even pen-and-paper [1]. After singularity, programming will be aided
heavily by AI even when we want to write our own. Mr. Clippy might have
more street smarts and degrees than you.
And, yeah, we'll have lots of video games. Procedural generation is already
a thing - creating worlds larger than any human could. With AI support, we
can actually create on-the-fly, creative content - e.g. like a team of
dungeon live masters dedicated to keeping the story interesting, and
keeping you on the border between addicted and terrified (or whatever
experience the game designer decides for you).
Best,
Dave
[1]
http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/programming-with-augmented-reality/
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM, karl ramberg karlramb...@gmail.com wrote:
So what will computing be in a hundred years?
Will we still painstakingly construct systems with a keyboard interface
one letter at a time ?
And what systems will we use ? And for what ?
Will we use computers for slashing virtual fruits and post images of our
breakfast on Facebook version 1000,2 ?
What are the future man using computers for ?
Karl
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Kevin
At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and
get the report on the Viewpoints server.
Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will
probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project
would be to do Nile in the Chrome Native Client to get a usable speedy
and very compact graphics system for web based systems.)
Yoshiki's K-Script has been experimentally implemented on top of
Javascript, and we've been learning a lot about this variant of
stream-based FRP as it is able to work within someone else's
implementation of a language.
A lot of work on the cooperating solvers part of STEPS is going on
(this was an add-on that wasn't really in the scope of the original
proposal).
We are taking another pass at the interoperating alien modules problem
that was part of the original proposal, but that we never really got around
to trying to make progress on it.
And, as has been our pattern in the past, we have often alternated
end-user systems (especially including children) with the deep systems
projects, and we are currently pondering this 50+ year old problem again.
A fair amount of time is being put into problem finding (the basic idea
is that initially trying to manifest visions of desirable future states
is better than going directly into trying to state new goals -- good
visions will often help problem finding which can then be the context for
picking actual goals).
And most of my time right now is being spent in extending environments
for research.
Cheers
Alan
--
*From:* Kevin Driedger linuxbox+f...@gmail.com
*To:* Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com; Fundamentals of New Computing
fonc@vpri.org
*Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 2:41 PM
*Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Alan,
Can you give us any more details or direction on these research projects?
]{evin ])riedger
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Dan
It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
time for the last 5-6 months.
Cheers,
Alan
--
*From:* Dan Melchione dm.f...@melchione.com
*To:* fonc@vpri.org
*Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
*Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned
or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
I doubt there will be a clear instant of oh, this, just now, was singularity. The ability even of a great AI to improve technologies is limited by its ability to hypothesize and experiment, and understand requirements. More likely, we'll see a lot of automated thinking (constraint solvers, probabilistic models, weighted logics, genetic programming) slowly take over aspects of different products and tasks. Indeed, I'm already seeing this. What humans might call 'real AI' will initially just be the human interfaces - the pieces that automate call centers, or support interactive storytelling. Singularity won't be instantaneous from the POV of the people living within it. Though, it might seem that way from a future historian's perspective. I've been fascinated by the progress in machine learning and deep learning over just the last few years. If you haven't followed them, there have been quite a few strides forward over the last six years or so, in part due to new processing technologies (programmable GPUs, et al.) and in part due to new ways of thinking about algorithms (not really 'new' but they take some time to gain traction) - e.g. the more recent focus on deep learning, and alternatives to backwards propagation such as using genetic programming to set weights and connectivity in neural networks. Regarding the language under-the-hood: If we want to automate software development, we would gain a great deal of efficiency and robustness by focusing on languages whose programs are easy to evaluate, and that will (a) be meaningful/executable by construction, and (b) avoid redundant meanings (aka full abstraction, or near enough). Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. I imagine a developer who favors such languages would have an advantage over one who sticks with C. Though, it might still compile to C. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Carl Gundel ca...@psychesystems.com wrote: We will have singularity and real AI? We may indeed, or perhaps the last 50 years will replay itself. Progress in artificial intelligence has moved along at a fraction of expectations. ** ** I expect that there will be an incredible increase of eye candy, and when you strip it down to the bottom there will still be languages derived from Java, C, Python, BASIC, etc. -Carl ** ** *From:* fonc-boun...@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-boun...@vpri.org] *On Behalf Of *David Barbour *Sent:* Tuesday, September 03, 2013 3:50 PM *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? ** ** what will computing be in a hundred years? ** ** We'll have singularity - i.e. software and technology will be developed by AIs. But there will also be a lot of corporate influence on which direction that goes; there will likely be repeated conflicts regarding privacy, ownership, computational rights, the issue of 'patents' and 'copyrights' in a world with high-quality 3D printers, high quality scanners, and AI-created technologies. As always, big companies with deep pockets will hang on through legal actions, lobbying, lashing out at the people and suppressing what some people will argue to be rights or freedoms. ** ** Computing will be much more widespread. Sensors and interactive elements will be ubiquitous in our environments, whether we like them or not. (Already, a huge portion of the population carries a multi-purpose sensor device... smartphone. Later, they'll be out of the pockets, on the heads, active all the time.) Before singularity, we'll be able to program on-the-fly, while walking around, using augmented reality, gestures or words, even pen-and-paper [1]. After singularity, programming will be aided heavily by AI even when we want to write our own. Mr. Clippy might have more street smarts and degrees than you. ** ** And, yeah, we'll have lots of video games. Procedural generation is already a thing - creating worlds larger than any human could. With AI support, we can actually create on-the-fly, creative content - e.g. like a team of dungeon live masters dedicated to keeping the story interesting, and keeping you on the border between addicted and terrified (or whatever experience the game designer decides for you). ** ** Best, ** ** Dave ** ** [1] http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/programming-with-augmented-reality/ ** ** ** ** ** ** On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:04 PM, karl ramberg karlramb...@gmail.com wrote: So what will computing be in a hundred years? Will we still painstakingly construct systems with a keyboard interface one letter at a time ? And what systems will we use ? And for what ? Will we use computers for slashing virtual fruits and post images of our breakfast on Facebook version 1000,2 ? ** ** What are the future man using computers
[fonc] Study on the effectiveness of learning software
Maybe relevant. Reading through this now... the findings seem to be broadly depressing. Notably: I get the sense that only commercial products were part of the study. I'm not familiar with any of them; in other words: Logo, Etoys, and Scratch were absent. Full text: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094041/pdf/20094041.pdf ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below... On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right semantic chops but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH. My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is syntaxlessness. I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative language like Joy. APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.comwrote: I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below... On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right semantic chops but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH. My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is syntaxlessness. I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- -Brian T. Rice ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Factor would be another decent example of a concatenative language. But I think arrowized programming models would work better. They aren't limited to a stack, and instead can compute rich types that can be evaluated as documents or diagrams. Further, they're really easy to model in a concatenative language. Further, subprograms can interact through the arrow's model - e.g. sharing data or constraints - thus operating like agents in a multi-agent system; we could feasibly model 'chromosomes' in terms of different agents. I've recently (mid August) started developing a language that has these properties: arrowized, strongly typed, concatenative, reactive. I'm already using Prolog to find functions to help me bootstrap (it seems bootstrap functions are not always the most intuitive :). I look forward to trying some genetic programming, once I'm further along. Best, Dave On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Brian Rice briantr...@gmail.com wrote: With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative language like Joy. APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com wrote: I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below... On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right semantic chops but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH. My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is syntaxlessness. I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- -Brian T. Rice ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Yes, in the case of FORTH, the concatenative property is what's interesting in this regard. It yields a kind of syntaxlessness that's interesting. I have to admit no real familiarity with APL (outside of some stunningly elegant solutions I've read to problems on Project Euler!) Thanks for letting me know that there's a familial relationship with FORTH and APL, Brian:) Also, genetic programming in a Prolog? Anyone? On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Brian Rice briantr...@gmail.com wrote: With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative language like Joy. APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com wrote: I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below... On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right semantic chops but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH. My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is syntaxlessness. I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- -Brian T. Rice ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Sorry, I've missed a beat somewhere. Arrowized? What's this bit with arrows? I saw the term arrow earlier and I think I've assumed that it was some slang for the FRP thing (if you think about it, that makes some sense.) But starting with intuitive assumptions is usually a bad plan, so I'd love some clarification if possible. On Sep 3, 2013, at 5:30 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Factor would be another decent example of a concatenative language. But I think arrowized programming models would work better. They aren't limited to a stack, and instead can compute rich types that can be evaluated as documents or diagrams. Further, they're really easy to model in a concatenative language. Further, subprograms can interact through the arrow's model - e.g. sharing data or constraints - thus operating like agents in a multi-agent system; we could feasibly model 'chromosomes' in terms of different agents. I've recently (mid August) started developing a language that has these properties: arrowized, strongly typed, concatenative, reactive. I'm already using Prolog to find functions to help me bootstrap (it seems bootstrap functions are not always the most intuitive :). I look forward to trying some genetic programming, once I'm further along. Best, Dave On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Brian Rice briantr...@gmail.com wrote: With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative language like Joy. APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com wrote: I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below... On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right semantic chops but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH. My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is syntaxlessness. I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- -Brian T. Rice ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Hey Alan, With regards to burning issues and better directions, I want to highlight the communicating with aliens problem as worth of remembering. Machines figuring out on their own a protocol and goals for communication. This might relate to cooperating solvers aspect of your work. Cheers, Tristan On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Jonathan We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on burning issues and better directions in computing. Cheers, Alan -- *From:* Jonathan Edwards edwa...@csail.mit.edu *To:* fonc@vpri.org *Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM *Subject:* Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals? Jonathan From: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Cc: Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? Hi Dan It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months. Cheers, Alan -- *From:* Dan Melchione dm.f...@melchione.com *To:* fonc@vpri.org *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM *Subject:* [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Yes, the communication with aliens problem -- in many different aspects -- is going to be a big theme for VPRI over the next few years. Cheers, Alan From: Tristan Slominski tristan.slomin...@gmail.com To: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com; Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? Hey Alan, With regards to burning issues and better directions, I want to highlight the communicating with aliens problem as worth of remembering. Machines figuring out on their own a protocol and goals for communication. This might relate to cooperating solvers aspect of your work. Cheers, Tristan On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Jonathan We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on burning issues and better directions in computing. Cheers, Alan From: Jonathan Edwards edwa...@csail.mit.edu To: fonc@vpri.org Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to work on or are you soliciting proposals? Jonathan From: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org Cc: Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? Hi Dan It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago, but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site. Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my time for the last 5-6 months. Cheers, Alan From: Dan Melchione dm.f...@melchione.com To: fonc@vpri.org Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned? Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned? ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Arrows are essentially a formalization of box-and-wire paradigms. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_arrows Arrows represent a rigid structure for dataflow, but are just expressive enough for non-linear composition of subprograms (i.e. parallel pipelines that branch and merge). One might consider this a bitter-sweet spot. For some people, it's too rigid. Fortunately, we can add just a little more flexibility: 1) runtime-configurable boxes/arrows, that might even take another box/arrow as input 2) metaprogramming - components execute in earlier stage than the runtime arrows I support both, but metaprogramming is my preferred approach to flexibility. Box-and-wire paradigms, even arrows, usually run into a problem where they get unwieldy for a single human to construct - too much wiring, too much tweaking, too much temptation to bypass the model (e.g. using a database or tuple space) to integrate different subprograms because we don't want wires all over the place. Metaprogramming overcomes those limitations, and enables structured approaches to deep entanglement where we need them. :) Best, Dave On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.comwrote: Sorry, I've missed a beat somewhere. Arrowized? What's this bit with arrows? I saw the term arrow earlier and I think I've assumed that it was some slang for the FRP thing (if you think about it, that makes some sense.) But starting with intuitive assumptions is usually a bad plan, so I'd love some clarification if possible. On Sep 3, 2013, at 5:30 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Factor would be another decent example of a concatenative language. But I think arrowized programming models would work better. They aren't limited to a stack, and instead can compute rich types that can be evaluated as documents or diagrams. Further, they're really easy to model in a concatenative language. Further, subprograms can interact through the arrow's model - e.g. sharing data or constraints - thus operating like agents in a multi-agent system; we could feasibly model 'chromosomes' in terms of different agents. I've recently (mid August) started developing a language that has these properties: arrowized, strongly typed, concatenative, reactive. I'm already using Prolog to find functions to help me bootstrap (it seems bootstrap functions are not always the most intuitive :). I look forward to trying some genetic programming, once I'm further along. Best, Dave On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Brian Rice briantr...@gmail.com wrote: With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative language like Joy. APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify. On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger casey.obrie...@gmail.com wrote: I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important context. My words below... On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming - i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged, mutated. I've only seen this done with two languages. Certainly it's possible in any language with the right semantic chops but so far it seems like we're looking at Lisp (et al) and FORTH. My observation has been that the main quality that yields (ease of recombination? I don't even know what it is for sure) is syntaxlessness. I'd love to know about other languages and qualities of languages that are conducive to this sort of thing, especially if anyone has seen interesting work done with one of the logic languages. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- -Brian T. Rice ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
