Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Jaron Lanier on "Phenotropic" Development
Sky Lemon writes "An interview with Jaron Lanier on Sun's Java site discusses 'phenotropic'
development versus our existing set of software paradigms. According to Jaron, the 'real difference between the current idea of software, which is protocol adherence, and the idea [he is] discussing, pattern recognition, has to do with the kinds of errors we're creating' and if 'we don't find a different way of thinking about and creating software, we will not be writing programs bigger than about 10 million lines of code no matter how fast our processors become.'"
-Chuck
My Freakin Blog
<cough>Bullshit.</cough>
This guy obviously knows nothing about biology. A single base change in DNA can result in mutations that cause death or spontaneous abortion. As little as a change in a single 'character' can be lethal. That's a pretty "small change" that results in a pretty big "crash."
I'm not sure if this invalidates his argument, but it certainly doesn't do much for his credibility.
"If you are an idealist it doesn't matter what you do or what goes on around you, because it isn't real anyway."-R.P.W.
And when you link your 10 million line program with my
:|
10 million line program, we've got a 20 million line program.
This idea of an inherent limit to the complexity of
programs using current methods is pure larksvomit, and
if Jaron Lanier sells it, he's a snake oil hawker.
This is Jack's total lack of surprise ->
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
"if 'we don't find a different way of thinking about and creating software, we will not be writing programs bigger than about 10 million lines of code no matter how fast our processors become."
Fantastic! We'll all get down and program small, specific routines for processing data, each one doing its' own job and doing it well. Those nasty, horrid standard protocols he refers to will allow all these small components to easily talk to each other - across architectures, networks etc.
Oh wait, this is the way it already works. Is this guy then, proposing that we learn a new way to program because our systems aren't monolithic enough? *sigh*
That is only if you consider one living been only. I think he means that is robust as an ecological balance. If a small change in the DNA base of one animal happens, he dies, and is unable to reproduce. So the 'error' was confined, and dealt with. It didn't explode giving a blue screen. Evolution is a phenomena of many living beens, not one. Even if a big change happens in a specie, most of the time the system is robust enough to absorb it and change the system into one that works. And, because of the evolutionary mechanism, only the good mutations, by definition, spread. Imagine a computer program where only the useful threads got resources allocated...
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
...but i don't see how it's physically possible. It sounds like he's proposing that we re-structure programming languages or at least the fundamentals of programming in the languages we do know (which might as well mean creating a new language). This isn't a bad thing per se, but one example he talks about is this:
Am i stupid or something? He seems to be drawing two, completely unrelated things together. Our computers, our CPUs, our ICs, at the end of the day they're just a bundle of very, very tiny on/off switches - pure binary logic. When we develop code for this environment, we have to develop according to those binary rules. We can't say "here's a rock", but we can say "turn on these switches and those switches such so that it indicates that we are pointing to a location in memory that represents a rock".
Maybe i'm missing his point, but i just don't understand how you can redefine programming, which is by definition a means of communication with a predictable binary system (as opposed to a "probability-based system" or whatever quantum physicists like to call reality), to mean inputting some kind of "digitized" real-world pattern. It's bizarre.
I got a sig so you would remember me.
I used to like this guy.
The problem with the kind of system he's talking about is that the more robust you make it, the harder it is to change it's behavior.
Take the cockroach, for instance. It is damned hard to train 100 of them to work together to open a pickle jar.
That's because a cockroach is extremely robust at being a cockroach, which has nothing to do with teaming up with 99 other cockroaches to open a pickle jar.
I don't believe nature had a design for each individual life form, other than to be robust. That doesn't give us any particular insight into how to both design something robust that meets a specific goal, which is the point of almost all software.
Once you get to the point where the specifications of each component are as exact as they need to be to meet a specific goal, you're lacking exactly the kind of robustness that he's describing.
What he's really saying is that entropy is easy to defeat. It's not. Perhaps there will be easier ways to communicate our goals to a computer in the future, but the individual components will still need to be extremely well thought-out. I think it's the difficulty of the language that makes symbol exchange between a human and a computer difficult - the fact that the human needs an exact understanding of the problem before they can codify it isn't going to change.
Education is the silver bullet.
His comments don't seem to make any sense with regard to the way we, as humans, actually view The Real World either:
Of course a file is a human invention, but it's also a concept without which NOTHING would work - not just computers. A "file" is just an abstraction of a blob, and i mean that both in the sense of a "blob" as in "a thing" and as in "Binary Large OBject". It's a piece of data that represents something. That's exactly the same thing as looking at a house and saying "that's a house" or looking at a car and saying "that's a car". It's just a way to categorize a bunch of photons/atoms/whatever into something we can readily communicate and understand. This is HUMAN, this is how we reason. If we "saw" the universe as a bazillion photons, we'd never get anything done, because we couldn't "here is a car", we'd be describing each photon individually, which would take up millions of human lifetimes. It's a human limitation, and i don't see any way that we could just up and ignore it.
Don't get me wrong, i think what this guy is talking about is fascinating, but i also think it's got more of a place in some theoretical branch of math than in real life development.
I got a sig so you would remember me.
Who modded this up? A single base change in DNA is almost never fatal. For a start, considerably more than 90% of the human genome is junk that has no expressive effect anyway (according to some theories it helps protect the rest of the genome.) Even point mutations in coding sections of the DNA often do not significantly alter the shape of the protein it codes for, and many proteins are coded for in several locations in the genome.
True, single base changes can have dramatic effects, but this is rare. As an example, the human genetic equipment is so fault-tolerant that humans can be even born with 3 copies of a chromosome and still survive (Down's Syndrome).
I think if more people get turned onto pure component-based development, then the current object-oriented paradigm could carry us much further.
You have chaotic errors where all you can say is, "Boy, this was really screwed up, and I guess I need to go in and go through the whole thing and fix it." You don't have errors that are proportionate to the source of the error.
In a way you do. Right now it's known as try() {...}catch(...) {}throw -or- COM interface -or- whatever other language you might work with that has a way to introduce error handling at the component or exact source-area level, and to handle errors gracefully.
"protocol adherence" is replaced by "pattern recognition" as a way of connecting components of software systems.
That would mean a whole new generation of viruses that thrive on the new software model. That would certainly stir things up a bit. Of course any pioneered methadology is subject to many problems.
But I'm not putting down his theory, just commenting on it. The guy's obviously a deep thinker. We need people to push the envelope and challenge our current knowledge like that. Overall the theory is extremely interesting, although the practicality of it will have to be proven, as with all other new ideas.
Give him a break.. He's got some points. And at least he's thinking about real and genuine problems. I see a lot of people commenting with the 'who needs 10 million lines of code?' shtick. Sounds familiar.
We're going to need to do things in a decade or two that would require 10 million lines of code (measured by current languages), just as the things we do now would require 10 million lines of code in 1960's languages.
The new languages and techniques that we have now provided ways for us to reduce the apparent complexity of programs. This guy is just looking for a way to do that again. Certainly there is room to disagree with his techniques for accomplishing this, but it is shortsighted to deny the problem.
The functioning of a multi-celled organism such as a vertebrate has incredibly high fault tolerance and would be a better analogy.
For example, if you stick a pin or needle in your finger, all that happens is you have a moment of pain and lose a drop or few of blood. There is zero impact to your life, health or functional abilities (except in the 0.0001% of cases where a serious infection occurs). The equivalent damage to a software system might be something like changing one bit in a 100-megabyte program. Such a tiny amount of damage can easily bring the whole system crashing down or spitting out gargage information.
Unlike software systems, animals (and plants, for that matter) can have multiple major components of their body damaged by disease or injury, yet not only do they survive, but they can recover well enough that their functional abilities and lifespan aren't damaged. You can lose your spleen, a kidney, or a good chunk of your liver, and eventually enjoy the same quality and quantity of life as those who have undamaged organs.
For mere survival, the tolerance is far higher. People have lost multiple limbs, taken a bullet in the head or abdomen, had a lung collapse, or broken several bones and recovered to live to their eighties and beyond.
It is very difficult to inflict a tiny damage that kills a large organism; the damage would have to be precisely directed at one of its weakest and most vital spots. But it is very easy to essentially destroy a large program by making a small random change.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.