> Anyways, based on my limited understanding of HTM, any hardware which is less than 64-bit (due to it's larger memory addressing capability) might not be a good fit for real-world usage.
Well, depends of your application. HTM applications related on vision couldn't be a good fit for poor hardware however simple HTM applications using a novel of data with one or two data-fields could be. > May I know which version of C++ is being used to write NuPIC-core? Currently C++11 On 23 July 2015 at 12:51, Mayuresh Kathe <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello David, > > What you are saying makes sense. > Anyways, based on my limited understanding of HTM, any hardware which is > less than 64-bit (due to it's larger memory addressing capability) might > not be a good fit for real-world usage. > > May I know which version of C++ is being used to write NuPIC-core? > > Thanks, > > ~Mayuresh > > > > On 2015-07-23 06:35 PM, David Ragazzi wrote: > >> Hi Mayuresh, >> >> This is my opinion, maybe Numenta guys have other reasons: >> >> ANSI-C would have afforded better portability than C++, and would >>> >> have made the whole system quite lighter. >> >> I agree but portability is not the main issue in NuPIC (not >> officialize Raspberry support is an example), I think that when >> developers choose a language as C++, they tend to want an increasing >> in performance but keeping certain level of understanding and >> maintenance. C++ has evolved alot in order to be more readable and >> continue light (compared to C), and because this I believe that >> Numenta team has not interest in abandon it as soon. >> >> Is it really difficult to write NuPIC-core in ANSI-C? >>> >> >> Depending your expertise in NuPIC, C++, and finally Ansi-C. Personally >> my big concern would be Ansi-C, as it requires a lot of work >> non-related to business logic such as strings and memory manipulation >> (which is simpler in C++), and this is tricksy to me. NuPIC core also >> has lot of code that is written in OO that need be converted to a >> structural approach. It seems that it's not an easy job at all. >> >> If not, now that NuPIC-core is already written and supported by >>> >> Numenta, would there be any kind of non-commercial support possible >> from Numenta towards re-development in ANSI-C? >> >> Numenta officially supports bindings for NuPIC-core such as Python >> bindings but I'm not sure how SWIG (the binding tool) could support >> pure C code like Ansi-C. About re-development in other languages, >> Numenta also officially supports Htm.Java, but I don't know say that >> they have interest in support another re-developments. >> >> Best regards, >> >> On 23 July 2015 at 03:06, Mayuresh Kathe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello, >>> >>> May I know why the NuPIC-core is written in C++ and not in ANSI-C? >>> >>> ANSI-C would have afforded better portability than C++, and would >>> have made the whole system quite lighter. >>> >>> Is it really difficult to write NuPIC-core in ANSI-C? >>> >>> If not, now that NuPIC-core is already written and supported by >>> Numenta, would there be any kind of non-commercial support possible >>> from Numenta towards re-development in ANSI-C? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> ~Mayuresh >>> >> >> -- >> >> David Ragazzi >> > > -- David Ragazzi Master in Sofware Engineering (University of Liverpool-UK) OS community commiter at Numenta.org -- Have you tried *NuPIC Studio*? Just check out https://github.com/nupic-community/nupic.studio and enjoy it! -- "I think James Connolly, the Irish revolutionary, is right when he says that the only prophets are those who make their future. So we're not anticipating , we're working for it."
