>> without intuition the development of science would grind to a halt.
Nathan, please elaborate more. Your second sentence about logic is obviously
true but I can't see where it has anything to do with your halting statement
unless you are totally misinterpreting me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nathan Cravens
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 6:43 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: [agi] More Info Please
Intuition is not science. Intuition is just hardened opinion.
Mark, without intuition the development of science would grind to a halt.
Logic doesn't come from god who made science in your image, those things come
from humans with faulty, sometimes elegant, perceptions.
Ben and Peter. Do you plan to sell your systems to weapons firms if they show
an interest? Will you submit to them because you know someone else will anyway?
Next, how can OpenCog be expected to remain safe in a society of scarcity?
It's not the technology itself that worries me, it's the interests of the few
that do. That's a big question. What are your thoughts?
Nathan
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Certainly there are plenty of folks with equal software engineering
experience
> to you, advocating the Linux/C++ route (taken in the current OpenCog
version)
> rather than the .Net/C# route that I believe you advocate...
Cool. An *argument from authority* without even having an authority. Show
me those "plenty of folks" and their reasons for advocating Linux/C++. Times
have changed. Other alternatives have advanced tremendously. You are out of
date and using and touting obsolete software and development methods. I
*don't* believe that you can find an expert who has remained current on
technology who will back your point.
{NOTE: It's also always interesting to see someone say that the argument
is OS/language vs. framework/language (don't you know enough to compare apples
to apples?)]
More importantly, I don't believe that I've ever explicitly endorsed C#.
What I've always pushed is the .NET framework because 1) it's got far more
already built infrastructure than anything else and 2) you can mix and match
languages so that you can use the most appropriate language in any given place
and still use another language where it is more appropriate.
So, I'll take up your challenge . . . .
I've developed in multiple flavors of Basic, Pascal, Assembly Language,
LISP, Prolog, C, C++, TCl, etc.
For experimental development, C++ is probably the worst choice. It's the
old first-attempt camel you use when you're trying to get speed and
object-oriented programming. The things that you *have* to worry about like
memory management and the errors that you can *easily* make are only offset
where speed is truly a concern. Except that development speed and iteration is
more important to this effort than sheer system speed. Except that the maximum
speed-up that you can get from C++ isn't that great -- and you only get that if
you are *really* good. Why aren't you using C++ only in really core systems
and something more appropriate for development elsewhere? Oh yeah, because
there is no really good way to easily integrate multiple languages like when
using .NET.
If you were serious about speed, you'd be using straight C. If you were
serious about development time and ease of development, you'd be using a better
object-oriented language -- or better yet, in many places, a functional
language.
Face it, you're using what you know and what you've *been* developing in --
and it's obsolete technology . . . . Your systems people are not keeping up as
is REQUIRED to maintain your edge in the systems field.
The newest version of C# now has virtually all of the functional capacity
of OCaml -- or, why not just use F# where appropriate? For web stuff, there's
far more infrastructure available under .NET than is available under any *nix
or Java and if you like the languages available on *nix, there's always
IronPython and Iron Ruby.
I claim as FACT that general development under .NET is at least twice as
fast as in any other environment due to the existing tools and infrastructure.
Can you find anyone who is familiar with both .NET 3.5 and Linux/C++ who is
willing to claim otherwise?
What is your reason for using C++? Other than the fact that porting your
application is going to be expensive, I'm not sure that you have a valid one.
And I'm reasonably sure that the advantages of porting will *rapidly* provide a
return on investment sufficient to offset the porting cost.
So, please, back up your claim. Find some experts who are up-to-date to
explain why Linux/C++ is better.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] More Info Please
>> 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 architecture that is most convenient and then we could
have
>> people cross-port between the two. I strongly contend that the current
>> architecture does not take advantage of a large part of the newest
advances
>> and infrastructures of the past half-decade. I think that if people saw
>> what could be done with far less time and code utilizing already existing
>> functionality and better tools that C++ would be a dead issue.
>
> Somehow I doubt that this list will be the place where the endless
OS/language
> wars plaguing the IT community are finally solved ;-p
>
> Certainly there are plenty of folks with equal software engineering
experience
> to you, advocating the Linux/C++ route (taken in the current OpenCog
version)
> rather than the .Net/C# route that I believe you advocate...
>
> -- Ben G
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> agi
> Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
> Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
