On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM, John Nilsson <j...@milsson.nu> wrote:
> I read that post about constraints and kept thinking that it should be > the infrastructure for the next generation of systems development, not > art assets :) > Got to start somewhere. The constraint-logic technology could always be shifted to systems programming after it matures in a low-risk, high-reward space. > > In my mind it should be possible to input really fuzzy constraints > like "It should have a good looking, blog-like design" > A search engine would find a set of implications from that statement > created by designers and vetted by their peers. Some browsing and > light tweaking and there, I have a full front-end design provided for > the system. > > Then I add further constraints. "Available via http://blahblah.com/ > and be really cheap", again the search engine will find the implied > constrains and provide options among the cheaper cloud providers. I > pick one of them and there provisioning is taken care of. > > I guess the problem is to come up with a way to formalize all this > knowledge experts are sitting on into a representation usable by that > search engine. But could this not be done implicitly from the act of > selecting a match after a search? > > Say some solution S derived from constrains A,B,C is selected in my > search. I have constraint A,B and D as input. By implication the > system now knows that S is a solution to D. > > BR, > John > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:09 PM, David Barbour <dmbarb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I discuss a similar vision in: > > > > http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/stone-soup-programming/ > > > > My preferred glue is soft stable constraint logics and my reactive > paradigm, > > RDP. I discuss a particular application of this technique with regards to > > game art development: > > > > > http://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/stateless-stable-arts-for-game-development/ > > > > Regards, > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Loup Vaillant <l...@loup-vaillant.fr> > 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 that are unimaginable today. > >>> […] > >> > >> > >> Sounds neat, but I cannot visualize an instantiation of this. Meaning, > >> I have no idea what assembling mechanisms could be used. Could you > >> sketch a trivial example? > >> > >> Loup. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> fonc mailing list > >> fonc@vpri.org > >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > > > > > > > -- > > bringing s-words to a pen fight > > > > _______________________________________________ > > fonc mailing list > > fonc@vpri.org > > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > -- bringing s-words to a pen fight
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
