Good luck on your trip!
Personally, I would rather start a debate page on virtually *anything* else.
I will start a couple on other AGI issues elsewhere but language debates
just aren't worth the time because most people have virulent opinions
without the requisite knowledge to support them -- not to mention the fact
that I wasn't arguing language but architecture and infrastructure. Check
out the fact that you can now do functional programming in the newest
version of C# and get back to me on how cool that is.
What I'd rather do instead is see if we can get a .NET parallel track
started over the next few months, see if we can get everything ported, and
see the relative productivity between the two paths. That would provide a
provably true answer to the debate.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Goertzel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <agi@v2.listbox.com>
Cc: "Linas Vepstas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] More Info Please
Mark,
For OpenCog we had to make a definite choice and we made one. Sorry
you don't agree w/ it.
I agree that you had to make a choice and made the one that seemed right
to
various reason. The above comment is rude and snarky however --
particularly since it seems to come *because* you can't justify your
choice. I would expect better of you.
= = = = = = =
Let's try this again. Get your experts together and create a short list
of
why C++ on Linux (and any infrastructure there that isn't immediately
available under .Net) is better than the combination of all the .Net
languages and all the infrastructure available there that isn't
immediately
available under Linux. No resorting to pseudo-democracies of experts,
how
about real reasons that YOU will stand behind and be willing to defend.
This would be a reasonable exercise, but I simply don't have time to
deal with it
right now.
I'm about to leave on a 2.5 weeks business / research-collaboration trip
to
Asia, and en route I hope to make some progress on mutating Novamente docs
into OpenCog docs. No time to burn on these arguments at the moment.
However, it might be worthwhile to create a page on the OpenCog wiki
focused on this issue, if others are also interested in it.
There could be a section on the page arguing the potential advantages
of .Net for
OpenCog; a section on the page arguing the intended advantages of the
current
approach; and other sections written by folks advocating other approaches
(e.g. LISP-centric, whatever...).
Perhaps if you create this page and get it started w/ your own arguments,
others
will contribute theirs and we can advance the debate that way.
-- Ben
-------------------------------------------
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: 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
