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. programming paradigms and languages (for which
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/ is really the best forum I've seen)
c. computational models and paradigms (e.g, massively concurrent systems, AI)
d. leading edge applications
e. computing paradigms in the large (e.g., biological computing, quantum
computing)
e. something else?
f. some combination of the above?
Kinda hard to tell from the discussions, and
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc is silent on the question.
Miles Fidelman
Oh come on. If you'd read everything here:
http://vpri.org/html/writings.php
...or followed the dialogue much, you wouldn't have to ask this question.
Well, no... it doesn't. That's a list of what VPRI is doing - which
strikes me as having a VERY limited focus vis-a-vis "fundamentals of new
computing" and the list above.
The dialogue has, at times wandered a bit beyond that, but does not (to
me) strike me as getting either particularly "fundamental" or getting
very near the edge of what might be considered "new computing" - as
compared to, say, "programming paradigms for quantum computers," or
"programming and metaprogramming in the human biocomputer."
Hence my question - particularly re. intent of the list sponsor, and
evolution (interests of the participants).
Miles
--
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
