Hello,
as I was thinking over these problems today, here are some initial thoughts,
just to get the conversation going...
The first time I read about the Method Finder and Ted's memo, I tried to grasp
the broader issue, and I'm still thinking of some interesting examples to
explore.
I can see
Well, for evocative names, there's always Brainfuck
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck) - which is a real language,
with derivatives even. And the name is truly accurate. :-)
John Carlson wrote:
Ah first time I came across a language with such an evocative name.
Since I am too
Malboge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge) was featured on an episode
of Elementary. It's named after the eighth circle of hell in Dante's
Inferno.
Malbolge was so difficult to understand when it arrived that it took two
years for the first Malbolge program to appear. The first Malbolge
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:33:04AM -0700, Jeff Gonis wrote:
I see no one has taken Alan's bait and asked the million dollar question:
if you decided that messaging is no longer the right path for scaling, what
approach are you currently using?
Classical computation doesn't allow storing
One of the original reasons for message-based was the simple relativistic
one. What we decided is that trying to send messages to explicit receivers had
real scaling problems, whereas receiving messages is a good idea.
Cheers,
Alan
From: Eugen Leitl
Hi Thiago
I think you are on a good path.
One way to think about this problem is that the broker is a human programmer
who has received a module from half way around the world that claims to provide
important services. The programmer would confine it in an address space and
start doing
Hi John
Or you could look at the actual problem a web has to solve, which is to
present arbitrary information to a user that comes from any of several billion
sources. Looked at from this perspective we can see that the current web design
could hardly be more wrong headed. For example, what is
This sounds suspiciously like Unit Testing, which is basically When I say
this, you should answer that.Thos are precomputed answers, but could
be computed I suppose -- so a bit like your Postscript example ... you send
the Testing-Agent down the pipe.
David
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 7:26 AM,
Alan --
Yes, we seem to slowly getting back the the NeWS (Network extensible
Windowing System) paradigm which used a modified Display Postscript to
allow the intelligence, including user input, to live in the terminal (as
opposed to the X-Windows model). But I am sure I am teaching my
Or the (earlier) Smalltalk Models Views Controllers mechanism which had a
dynamic language with dynamic graphics to allow quite a bit of flexibility with
arbitrary models.
From: David Harris dphar...@telus.net
To: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com; Fundamentals
I've done some postscript programming. I guess I see the shading languages
more a successor to postscript than any revival of display postscript and
its onerous licensing. People are already trying to put javascript into
the gpu. I haven't seen nile, but I assume that it works with gpus. What
I was imagining QuickCheck properties instead of unit tests...
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com wrote:
Unit tests are just a small part of the kinds of description that could be
used and are needed.
From: David Harris
If doing experiment means experimenting with meaning, I agree.
On Feb 13, 2013 3:17 PM, Barry Jay barry@uts.edu.au wrote:
**
Hi Alan,
the phrase I picked up on was doing experiments. One way to think of the
problem is that we are trying to automate the scientific process, which is
a
Hi John,
In the scientific tradition, experiments produce cold facts, while
reason chooses the experiments, and uses them to test hypotheses, i.e.
to extract meaning, so perhaps experimenting for meaning or
experimenting to recover, or discover, meaning is closer to what I had
in mind.
On
From my last trip to the SPLASH conference a few years ago, I've been
contemplating a lot of these ideas. Especially the messaging paradigm and
the current conundrum with concurrency and scaling.
A common theme (brought up by Ivan Sutherland paraphrased here) is that in
the past processing was
Ah. You try to achieve a purely numeric result. Don't forget qualitative
data and normative thinking. Perhaps by meaning you mean qualitative
data. Normative thinking should control reason. That is, we shouldn't be
experimenting with destructive things.
Perhaps experimenting with meaning is
Hi Barry
I like your characterization, and do think the next level also will require a
qualitatively different approach
Cheers,
Alan
From: Barry Jay barry@uts.edu.au
To: fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc]
Alan Kay wrote:
Or you could look at the actual problem a web has to solve, which is
to present arbitrary information to a user that comes from any of
several billion sources. Looked at from this perspective we can see
that the current web design could hardly be more wrong headed. For
Hi Miles
First, my email was not about Ted Nelson, Doug Engelbart or what massively
distributed media should be like. It was strictly about architectures that
allow a much wider range of possibilities.
Second, can you see that your argument really doesn't hold? This is because it
even more
Miles wrote:
There's a pretty good argument to be made that what works are powerful
building blocks that can be combined in lots of different ways;
So the next big thing will be some version of minecraft? Or perhaps the
older toontalk? Agentcubes? What is the right 3D metaphor? Does anyone
Hi Alan
First, my email was not about Ted Nelson, Doug Engelbart or what
massively distributed media should be like. It was strictly about
architectures that allow a much wider range of possibilities.
Ahh... but my argument is that the architecture of the current web is
SIMPLER than
On Feb 13, 2013 7:57 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
wrote:
Ahh... but my argument is that the architecture of the current web is
SIMPLER than earlier concepts but has proven more powerful (or at least
more effective).
If you believe that, I've got a perl script I want to sell
My suggestion is to learn a little about biology and anthropology and media as
it intertwines with human thought, then check back in.
From: Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 13,
John Carlson wrote:
Miles wrote:
There's a pretty good argument to be made that what works are
powerful building blocks that can be combined in lots of different ways;
So the next big thing will be some version of minecraft? Or perhaps
the older toontalk? Agentcubes? What is the right
Ah, I thought DIS only sent id, position, orientation, velocity and
acceleration. Do objects own their properties, or can anyone on the
network provide them?
I've heard of people mixing X3D with DIS. I thought that X3D provided all
the modelling and visualization, and DIS provided the above.
That's a good name for a programming language!
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:20 AM, David Pennell pennell.da...@gmail.comwrote:
Malboge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge) was featured on an
episode of Elementary. It's named after the eighth circle of hell in
Dante's Inferno.
Malbolge was
There is more to the DIS (Distributed *Interactive* Simulation) than I
originally thought. I found this in the X3D standard:
http://www.web3d.org/files/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/components/dis.html
if
one can set up isNetworkWriter, it would seem like anything on the network
would be
The next big thing probably won't be some version of Minecraft, even if
Minecraft is really awesome. OTOH, you and your kids can prove me wrong
today with Minecraft Raspberry Pi Edition, which is free, and comes with
_source code_.
28 matches
Mail list logo
