have been talking about massive concurrency, an
assuming inconsistency as the future trend, for years.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
___
fonc mailing list
fonc
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 08:19:53AM -0700, David Barbour wrote:
That said, I also disagree with Tom, there: design complexity doesn't need
to increase with parallelism. The tradeoff between complexity vs.
parallelism is more an artifact of sticking with imperative
David Barbour wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org
mailto:eu...@leitl.org wrote:
It's not just imperative programming. The superficial mode of human
cognition is sequential. This is the problem with all of mathematics
and computer science as well.
David Barbour wrote:
Your approach to parallelism strikes me as simplistic. Like saying
Earth is in center of Solar system. Sun goes around Earth. It sounds
simple. It's easy to conceptualize. Oh, and it requires epicyclic
orbits to account for every other planet. Doesn't sound so simple
the same, but it's with David Barbour
Miles Fidelman wrote:
David Barbour wrote:
Your approach to parallelism strikes me as simplistic. Like saying
Earth is in center of Solar system. Sun goes around Earth. It sounds
simple. It's easy to conceptualize. Oh, and it requires epicyclic
orbits
BGB wrote:
On 4/4/2012 9:29 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
- game-like simulations (which I'm more familiar with): but these are
serious games, with lots of people and vehicles running around
practicing techniques, or experimenting with new weapons and tactics,
and so forth; or pilots training
David Barbour wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
The whole point of architecture is to generate the overall outline
of a system, to address a particular problem space within the
constraints
BGB wrote:
On 4/4/2012 5:26 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
BGB wrote:
Not so sure. Probably similar levels of complexity between a
military sim. and, say, World of Warcraft. Fidelity to real-world
behavior is more important, and network latency matters for the
extreme real-time stuff (e.g
David Barbour wrote:
Going back to this post (to avoid distraction), I note that
Aggregate Level Simulation Protocol
and its successor
High Level Architecture
Both provide time management to achieve consistency, i.e. so that
the times for all simulations appear the same to users and so that
direction - but I've yet to see any efforts toward
concurrent or distributed smalltalk go very far (well, maybe Croquet
qualifies).
I wonder if you might have any comments to offer on why Smalltalk took
the path it did re. flow-of-control, and/or future directions.
Regards,
Miles Fidelman
K. K. Subramaniam wrote:
Hi,
I am fascinated by the emergence of transparent and flexible displays. With
such displays one can build a rollable mat with a network of processors (and
battery!) spread across the spine sharing the load. Heat dissipation will no
longer be a design constraint in
Julian Leviston wrote:
Haha speaking of this, I can't resist linking to this spoof of what
it'd really be like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=_mRF0rBXIeg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=_mRF0rBXIeg
Argggh.
--
In theory, there
BGB wrote:
and, recently devised a hack for creating component layered JPEG
images, or, basically, a hack to allow creating JPEGs which also
contained alpha-blending, normal maps, specular maps, and luma maps
(as an essentially 16-component JPEG image composed of multiple
component layers,
BGB wrote:
On 6/4/2012 6:48 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
BGB wrote:
and, recently devised a hack for creating component layered JPEG
images, or, basically, a hack to allow creating JPEGs which also
contained alpha-blending, normal maps, specular maps, and luma maps
(as an essentially 16
Toby Schachman wrote:
This half hour talk from Zed Shaw is making rounds,
https://vimeo.com/43380467
The first half is typical complaints about broken w3 standards and
processes. The second half is his own observations on the difficulties
of teaching OOP. He then suggests that OOP is an
John Zabroski wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon
p...@informatimago.com mailto:p...@informatimago.com wrote:
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com
mailto:johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
All I want to do is upload a file
and yet I have all these
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
Sorry, you did not answer my question, but instead presented excuses
for why programmers misunderstand people. (Can I paraphrase your
thoughts as, Because people are not programmers!)
No, you misunderstood my answer:
Paul Homer wrote:
In software, you might build a system with 100,000 lines of code.
Someone else might come along and build it with 20,000 lines of code,
but there is some underlying complexity tied to the functionality that
dictates that it could never be any less the X lines of code. The
whole
hog to produce a new species.
Encapsulating complexity (e.g, in mitochondria) doesn't eliminate
complexity. Encapsulation and layering MANAGES complexity allowing new
layers of complexity to be constructed (or emerge) through combinations
of more complicated building blocks.
Miles
BGB wrote:
a problem is partly how exactly one defines complex:
one definition is in terms of visible complexity, where basically
adding a feature causes code to become harder to understand, more
tangled, ...
another definition, apparently more popular among programmers, is to
simply
GrrrWaaa wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Wesley Smith wrote:
If things are expanding then they have to get more complex, they encompass
more.
Aside from intuition, what evidence do you have to back this statement
up? I've seen no justification for this statement
Tomasz Rola wrote:
Oh, I mean, yes, everybody can learn to program, but how many have any
kind of their own ideas for their own programs? Of all Lego (ab)users, how
many build their own constructs while the rest is content with copying
stuff? Of all literate humans, how many have something
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
Iian Neill iian.d.ne...@gmail.com writes:
And I suspect the fact that BASIC was an interpreted language had a
lot to do with fostering experimentation play.
BASIC wasn't interpreted. Not always. What matters is not interpreter
or compiler, but to have an
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
No, no, no. That's the point of our discussion. There's a need to
increase computer-literacy, actually programming-literacy of the
general public.
The situation where everybody would be able (culturally, with a basic
knowing-how, an with the help of the right
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net writes:
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
No, no, no. That's the point of our discussion. There's a need to
increase computer-literacy, actually programming-literacy of the
general public.
The situation where everybody would
crowdsourcing project, or organizing a
large event - I'm looking for scenarios to support - particuarly if
you're funded :-)
And there's a 30-day clock running, so sooner is better!
Thank you very much for any support you might offer,
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between
examples of emergent behavior.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Loup Vaillant wrote:
Miles Fidelman a écrit :
Loup Vaillant wrote:
De : Paul Homer paul_ho...@yahoo.ca
If instead, programmers just built little pieces, and it was the
computer itself that was responsible for assembling it all together
into
mega-systems, then we could reach scales
Paul Homer wrote:
I'm in a slightly different head-space with this idea.
A URL for instance, is essentially an encoded set of instructions for
navigating to somewhere and then if it is a GET, grabbing the
associated data, lets say an image. If my theoretical user where to
create a screen (or
kind of architecture one is presenting, and
for what purpose.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo
start approaching what cells do today. (FYI, try googling
micro-tubules and you'll find some interesting papers on how these
sub-cellular structures just might act like associative arrays :-)
Cheers,
Miles Fidelman
so, you have microbes that eat things, or produce useful byproducts
in this thread, along with object and
messaging.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
of object oriented would now
seem to be very actor-like.
Cheers,
Alan
*From:* Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
*To:* Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 12, 2013
John Carlson wrote:
Is there a computer language (yes I realize games do this) that work
like human languages? With features like misdirection,
misinterpretation, volume, persuasion? Can we come up with a social
language for computers? No, I'm not talking lojban, I'm talking
something
paranoid to click on a link, perhaps you could
summarize. I did a search and it seemed to indicate that the language
was a joke. Sigh.
On Feb 12, 2013 7:26 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
John Carlson wrote:
Is there a computer
, and now the
web. Simple mashups seem to have won out over more complicated service
oriented architectures. We might well have plateaued.)
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
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
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
, the suggestion was to use session idsyeah, right, one key
for the whole browser.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
John Carlson wrote:
Miles wrote:
There's a pretty good argument
John Carlson wrote:
On Feb 13, 2013 7:57 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
mailto: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
John Carlson wrote:
Yes, uni-directional is simpler than bi-directional. The web doesn't
require configuration? You've got to be kidding. That's what juju
charms are for. I think minimal configuration on the client-side is
what you are referring to. I don't recall any client-side gopher
John Carlson wrote:
On Feb 14, 2013 12:52 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Well, at least in principle, drop an html file in a directory
(behind a server) and it gets served (or drop it in a WebDAV folder).
That sounds like the web
messages).
On Feb 14, 2013 2:45 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
John Carlson wrote:
On Feb 14, 2013 12:52 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
mailto:mfidel
John Carlson wrote:
REST was a simplification of HTTP. I am merely reporting backlash
against REST. Also there is backlash against XML which is why people
are using JSON. There was probably quite a bit of design of HTTP, but
I could see MIME being replaced with something else.
Is there
John Carlson wrote:
Here's where I believe the issue lies: 1. Adding approximately 100 or
more objects to a collection backed by a relational database, in an
interactive system. I believe the time for the transaction(s) took
too long. I am not sure if the REST service supported by the
John Carlson wrote:
The way I read rest over http post (wikipedia) is that you either
create a new entry in a collection uri, or you create a new entry in
the element uri, which becomes a collection. So one still needs a way
to add several entries to a collection, or one needs something
of RESTful interfaces to things like imagery and map databases. What
makes them restful is how data is addressed (by URL), and the use of
HTTP operations to GET/PUT/DELETE data, but the actual data formats are
content specific (audio formats, video formats, shape files, etc.)
Miles Fidelman
John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com writes:
Sometimes I think that something like http://leapmotion.com will use
something like Ameslan to revolutionize programming. Maybe programming
will become less sedentary and more like dance dance revolution.
Two words: Minority Report
/mailman/listinfo/fonc is silent on the question.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Casey Ransberger wrote:
Below.
On Apr 13, 2013, at 7:18 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Though... it does raise the question: what is the intended and/or evolved scope of FONC?
For the purposes of discussion here, what constitutes new computing?
Is it:
a. VPRI's work
b
So let's ask the obvious question, if we have powerful languages, and/or
powerful libraries, is not an application comprised primarily of glue
code that ties all the piece parts together in an application-specific
way?
David Barbour wrote:
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Steve Wart
://lambda-the-ultimate.org/
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Need *GetContented *-**Make
Websites, Not War!
On 28 Sep 2014, at 2:12 pm, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Silly question, perhaps, but isn't that true of a stack exchange site
as well?
Julian Leviston wrote:
I think because of a lack
Isn't the obvious answer to use indirect addressing via a directory?
John Carlson wrote:
To put the problem in entirely file system terminology, What happens
to a folder with shortcuts into it when you move the folder? How
does one automatically repoint the shortcuts? Has this problem been
One might argue that this applies as nicely to files as to network
addresses:
A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how to get there.
-- Jon Postel, in RFC791 (Internet Protocol)
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between
55 matches
Mail list logo
