Jim, On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip> > However, when he starts talking about project he wants us to join in > even though he has not actually started by providing us with any of > his own definitions - and he wants these definitions in canonical form > - I have to draw the line. That's not how it is done. It doesn't work > that way. You write interface definitions when you have so many > interfaces that no one can recognize them by name. > These are the words of someone who lacks experience designing large-scale systems. It only takes around twice the work of writing a single interface to write a general interface. Often in the final analysis the payoff comes in the first interface, because this exercise forces you to consider EVERYTHING at the beginning, rather than having to revisit the interface for everything you forgot to put into it when you first created it in haste. Of course, if you are going to exchange code with someone else, the payoff is immediate. It is my guess that early attention to details that are easily put off, like adjusting operation (learning), will force drilling down into the REAL (but hidden) nuts and bolts of AGI - the very things for which you have been searching. Ignoring canonical forms and standard interfaces may be sentencing you to a lifetime of fruitless search. Steve ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
