Slashdot Mirror


Next-Gen Game of Life

SQL31337 writes "Jecology is a life simulator created in the spirit of Conway's Game of Life. It touches on many topics such as cellular automata, ecological balance, and the food chain. There is only one type of creature in Conway's Game of Life(CGoL). They reproduce, but do not mutate or evolve. They do not have to find food, but instead simply die based on scarcity or overpopulation. Jecology encompasses these aspects of ecology with a more complex simulation, but retains much of the elegant simplicity found in CGoL. Jecology is not merely a life simulator, but an ecology simulator. It is also an example of a complex system arising from simple rules, as described in A New Kind of Science. Screenshots and info about Jecology here."

99 comments

  1. shit negroponte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    hey, that is some cool stuff. I was always fascinated with the game of life from my first CS days in college. Creating life! Actual life! and watching them live out their days and make families. It is fascinating!!!

    1. Re:shit negroponte by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much. :) Everyone that has seen them agrees.

  2. A New Kind Of Ass Clown by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even when people like Ray Kurzweil actually take Wolfram's work seriously they conclude that he's written the biggest book about nothing to ever lay claim to the title of Science. Nothing "new" or worthy of the title of "science" came out of Wolfram's 10 year hiatus into cellular autonoma. Certainly nothing useful or enlightening either. However we did get to tolerate his smug superior "I invented the universe" style for 1488 pages.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      I don't really care about Wolfram's book. I read it all, and feel much the same way about it that you do. Did you try my program? :)

    2. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Of course, got up to L.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was, er, privileged enough to hear Wolfram speak at the Artificial Life 9 conference last year. Going in, I fully expected his head to expand to fill all available space in the room. But as it turned out, the self-ego-stroking was far less than I expected, and the only particularly ridiculous thing to come out of the talk was his unnecessary use of an acronym - NKS - which stood for nothing more than "New Kind of Science". (The book goes on to suggest that this new kind of science, which is not much more than Yet Another Computational Model, would revolutionize a wide variety of scientific fields. Wolfram was somewhat more reserved concerning this possibility during his talk.)

      Three mornings later, Eors Szathmary gave the featured session, helpfully and humorously noting that his talk would for our benefit remain focused on OKS. ;)

    4. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The book goes on to suggest that this new kind of science, which is not much more than Yet Another Computational Model, would revolutionize a wide variety of scientific fields.

      No, what Wolfram claims in the book is that he developed a framework by which other scientific fields will be reshaped. The key part of a framework is that the actual work part has been left to somebody else. I love this bullshit, you can tell can't ya? I like saying to my prewife that although I havn't taken the trash out today, by stacking the empty milk bottle near the overflowing trash can I've developed a framework for taking out the trash.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

      I then go on to state how my framework will revolutionise taking out the trash and how I was in a "unique" position to develop such a framework, being that I both have trash and am responsible for disposing of the trash in our household.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      He claims it to be a framework, yes, but in reality it's just Yet Another Computational Model. I wasn't clear about that in the sentence you quoted - sorry.

      By the way, note that there's nothing inherently cheesy about developing a framework for something. One could argue that programming languages are merely frameworks for developing software, but nobody tries to downplay the importance of (commonly used) programming languages in the field of engineering computing devices.

    7. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also happens to be a great framework for not gettin' any for a week.

    8. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Informative

      I tried some variations such as having them stop eating when the population of their prey gets too low. They still manage to extinct themselves eventually. If I get past Z, it just keeps going into higher characters.

    9. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by sjwaste · · Score: 1

      It compiles just fine under Win2k running Cygwin. Just gotta make sure to have g++ and ncurses installed. The ncurses binaries wouldn't install for me, and the build shell script wouldn't work, so for anyone running into that, just uzip the ncurses tarball in /usr/src, go in and do a make, then a make install. Cleared it up for me (this has nothing to do with your program, btw, it was Cygwin giving me problems).

      Under default settings, I got to G and H, then everything started to go extinct. Then I started looking at the source and haven't run it again yet. Nice job!

    10. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by spongman · · Score: 1

      well, he proved that rule 110 is universal. He also discovered the smallest set of NAND/NOR axioms for boolean algebra.

    11. Re:A New Kind Of Ass Clown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > well, he proved that rule 110 is universal.

      The hell he did. Matthew Cook demonstrated that theorem.

  3. Neat. by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

    I did this a long time ago using SDL and OpenGL with spiffy colored blocks and a huge world you had to scroll around in using the mouse. One color would eat the other color, reproduce differently, had different basic rules, etc. I guess it was a cellular automata. I may have had a 3rd species, but at some point I started to lose interest and moved on to bigger and more 3D things.

    I like simulations like this, but I fail to see what is revolutionary about it. I'm sure thousands of people have implemented something similar. Heck, in high school we implemented the game of life and my very first modification was to attempt to add a second life form using slightly different rules to make things interesting.

    1. Re:Neat. by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      It's just eye candy. Some people tend to watch it for hours. The rules are essentially the same for each creature (except for what they eat), actually, but there's theoretically no limit to how high they could evolve. All that stops them are the constraints of a food chain. I have a genetic version, where each creature's knowledge of how to move towards food, mutate, etc is genetc. However, the system eventually starts looking exactly the same as the one you're looking at, so I left that stuff out. I'm not claiming it's revolutionary. I was personally astonished at the formation of the hierarchies, which I had not forseen happening in such a fashion. What I do like is the simplicity of the code. I want people to hack it up, etc.

    2. Re:Neat. by mvdw · · Score: 1
      I like it. An interesting development could be to allow creatures to devolve; that is, to allow them to occasionally spawn creatures of a lesser level. This would allow the universe to not ever die out due to lower level life forms becoming extinct.

      Another interesting (IMO) modification would be to have the creatures that die to somehow form a fertiliser/garden bed for more A's, and also to allow A's to be eaten to death (meaning there will possibly be some kind of equilibrium forming). Great work; I might look at the source tonight at home.

    3. Re:Neat. by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you looked at Thomas Ray's Tierra simulator? I saw results from that in the early 90s when he was at U. Delaware, and he got quite complex behaviour from a few simple rules, and a single parent organism.

      One of the interesting byproducts of Tierra was that one of the first organisms to evolve was a more optimzed version (fewer instructions) of his hand made one, which then went on to give rise to parasites, anti-parasites, predators, etc.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    4. Re:Neat. by eyeye · · Score: 1

      I'm astonished that slashdot posted a story about yet another "life" simulator. Surely anyone who's programmed to any degree has made their own.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    5. Re:Neat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, what don't you post yours, jackass.

  4. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They reproduce, but do not mutate or evolve.

    Unfortunately, slashdot readers do not do any of the above.

  5. tried it.. by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

    It is neat, however you should reset the playing area to pure black before the game begins as my terminal's default background is not black and it looks a bit screwy before it gets going.

    BTW, I'm using OSX. No errors or warnings, compiles just fine out of the box.

    1. Re:tried it.. by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      Will do. ;) I've always run it on a black terminal. Nice to know it works on OSX as well.

    2. Re:tried it.. by stevey · · Score: 1

      First run the highest I saw was a 'P'.

      The big problem with it is that there seems to be die-back is pretty much inevitable because the later letters are constrained in what they eat. If there aren't enough immediate ancestors they eventually die out.

      If there were an injection of 'fresh blood' when things got stagnent that might help. I noticed that after a while I was left with 'C', 'D' and 'H' pieces which just didn't find each other. Sometimes new letters such as 'L' would appear and not even move - presumably they couldn't find anythign to eat nearby.

      Nice to watch, although unfortunate it's a curses application so I can't run it as a screensaver!

      The best bit I think was watching an 'L' chase a 'K' left across the screen - closly followed by an 'M' hunting it in turn!

    3. Re:tried it.. by Cleon+I · · Score: 1

      I ran it with a rather large universe (terminal window stretched across two screens) and some favorable initial conditions (1000 As and 1000 Bs to start with), and it managed to survive for over 7800 generations. The highest creature I saw was a ']', which appeared slightly before the universe self-destructed.

    4. Re:tried it.. by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      You might also want to call attron(A_BOLD) in your display initialization function. It makes everything much easier to see.

  6. Computation? by addaon · · Score: 1

    Is this new ruleset turing complete? That is, in my opinion, one of the most astonishing and impressive examples of emergent complexity re: the conway ruleset.

    --

    I've had this sig for three days.
    1. Re:Computation? by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean by Turing-complete in this context. You need a Turing-complete language to implement the ruleset, I think. It deviates pretty far from Conway's original ruleset. The rules are still fairly simple, and are described pretty well on the rules page .

    2. Re:Computation? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      What he means is that Conway's Game Of Life was so amazing that you could actually implement a turing machine in it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Computation? by addaon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I mean that the physics of the ruleset can be used to implement a universal turing machine. See this for a pre-universal example.

      This means, of course, that the game of life can emulate itself. An open question (as far as I know) is whether there is a more efficient emulation method that takes deeper advantage of the rules, rather than passing through a "general computation" layer.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    4. Re:Computation? by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      Well, no then, this isn't Turing complete. I actually call rand() to determine where each new creature spawns and how many will spawn and whether there are mutations. That precludes Turing-completeness.

    5. Re:Computation? by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      That website is really cool. I've never seen it before. That is truly awesome.

    6. Re:Computation? by SQL31337 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope you know that I'm currently getting geared up to spend endless hours with xlife (again), when I should be doing more productive stuff. Thanks alot, buddy. ;)

    7. Re:Computation? by musselm · · Score: 1

      That is crazy. Thanks.

    8. Re:Computation? by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      Well, I wouldn't quite say precludes, just that such a machine would probably have to be pretty big to have a chance of working reliably (and maybe you could never prove that it would always work). Consider that it's likely that God does play dice with the universe, though this doesn't interfere with computers too much.

    9. Re:Computation? by Jackmn · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is *far* too enjoyable knocking out a couple cells on that and watching the entire thing collapse =/

    10. Re:Computation? by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Actually why do you use rand() at all? Conway's game didn't have anything random. You could use "chaotic" rules for evolution instead (for example "when a predator eats a creature surrounded by three others, it evolves one level").

      I would find it much more elegant, specially since a population behavior would be repeatable.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    11. Re:Computation? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      The answer, I suspect, is almost certainly "yes", but it's not very interesting.

      The way the Game of Life implements a Turing machine is extremely complicated, so it's not interesting as a way to make a Turing machine. It's interesting because the result that it can be done at all is surprising. It's interesting that a simple game gives rise to the full power of the TM. It also gives you a new way to study the basic properties of the TM: anything you prove about Life can be applied to the TM.

      This game he's describing is more complicated, so it's therefore less interesting that it gives rise to a TM. And because it's so complex, it's hard to prove anything about it, so it's hard to learn anything new about TMs.

      For that matter I'm having a hard time getting enthused about the whole notion of the Jecology game. If it can be demonstrated that it models the world with some fidelity we might learn something. If it makes pretty pictures, that's also of some value. But I doubt we'll learn much about the nature of cellular automata; that's best done in simple machines.

  7. I Always Wanted To Write An Evolving Game by szyzyg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I made loads of notes back when I had an Atari ST - the idea was to basically have a scrolling shooter with lots of aliens travelling around the landscape. The aliens would breed and through survival of the fittest they'd get stronger - the player would essentially be the force of natural selection....

    Maybe it's time to revisit the idea.

    1. Re:I Always Wanted To Write An Evolving Game by Tanmi-Daiow · · Score: 1

      but what if you kill all the aliens and none escape to reproduce...

      --
      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
    2. Re:I Always Wanted To Write An Evolving Game by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You mean something like Robotron: 2084?

    3. Re:I Always Wanted To Write An Evolving Game by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Game Over, Dude!

    4. Re:I Always Wanted To Write An Evolving Game by szyzyg · · Score: 1

      Then you head off to another planet.... with a deeper gene pool.
      Or perhaps you fail - if your mission is to try and evolve the aliens into a suitable food source (i.e. weed out the aggressive genes)

    5. Re:I Always Wanted To Write An Evolving Game by wheany · · Score: 1

      That's it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?

  8. Modern research.. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I don't want to knock anyone hacking on code, but hasn't this been done? We've been using genetic algorithims and studying emergent behaviour for a while now, and there are some very advanced code bases out there.

    I like the eye-candy aspect of it, though. Maybe you could port it to OpenGL. :-)

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    1. Re:Modern research.. by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      I actually thought it could make a good Linux screensaver, as is, or even with different bitmaps or animations to represent each creature. And it is just eye-candy. :)

    2. Re:Modern research.. by SQL31337 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of the life simulators I've played with (gLife comes immediately to mind) turn me off with their complexity. I was actually aiming for something almost as simple as Conway's game. The code really isn't very large. And to be honest, everyone I have shown it to in person has wound up zoning out for hours and watching it, while I try to move on to different things. They begin talking about "Cancers of D's defended by G's" while the other people around them just stare at them blankly. I really would like help on it, and I'm definitely going to port it to Open GL.

    3. Re:Modern research.. by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and I'm not sure anyone has ever made a system with rules identical to this one's. If you are aware of such a system, please inform me.

    4. Re:Modern research.. by cahiha · · Score: 1

      We've been using genetic algorithims and studying emergent behaviour for a while now, and there are some very advanced code bases out there.

      Roughly, the modern day equivalent of alchemy: put a newt, a cat's paw, and three hairs into a retort, and then see whether something "emerges".

  9. differential equations? by EngMedic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    complex behavior from a simple model? That just sounds like a parameter-sensitive system of differential eqations. Am I missing something? A "complex" ecological system (or any other system) is normally modeled well (or well enough) over a set of conditions with a linear second-order system, and if it isn't, there exist well-tested tools for nonlinear analysis for high-order systems.

    --
    filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
    1. Re:differential equations? by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      And what the hell is this guy talking about? Try modeling that rand() function. :) In fact, come up with a system of linear or non-linear analysis for this system. Or better yet, just run the program and watch the little things gather food until they starve or are eaten. ;) I hate the superior attitude people take, especially when it seems they barely know what they are trying to tell us. The program is EYE CANDY! You're supposed to enjoy it. It doesn't solve any real world problems whatsoever.

    2. Re:differential equations? by musselm · · Score: 1

      Complex behavior from simple rules is different. A simple model could include the concept that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa, while simple rules could be as simple as, "look at your predecessor and his neighbors who are all either black or white, and based on their colors, choose a color for yourself from the set {black, white} (256 rules total)."

      More here:
      http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/chapter-3

    3. Re:differential equations? by blancolioni · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is slashdot, where the immediate response to just about anything is to whine.

      In an attempt to be more constructive, I hacked it a bit so that mature As now occasionally produce a B offspring, which seems to give a more stable ecology, although Ms always starve to death, and I feel sad about that because they look so noble.

      I shouldn't anthropomorphise letters, but hey, I used to play Rogue ...

      Pretty diversion!

    4. Re:differential equations? by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      complex behavior from a simple model? That just sounds like a parameter-sensitive system of differential eqations.

      There are other ways of getting complexity from simple rules. Can the mandelbrot set be generated with differential eqations?

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

  10. A's or B's should eat "dead" everthing elses by DarrinWest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If it is a real "ecology", where is the waste recycling? When a higher level creature dies, it is a large collection of useful energy. In real life something would evolve to eat the corpse.

    I'd like to see whether this sort of system would develop "lichen" (combination of fungus and algae), or other perpetuating synergies.

    1. Re:A's or B's should eat "dead" everthing elses by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      You mean when things starve they should leave a corpse that can be eaten by a scavenger, I assume. That is a really interesting idea.

    2. Re:A's or B's should eat "dead" everthing elses by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Either that or eventually turn into a plant or something.

    3. Re:A's or B's should eat "dead" everthing elses by BackInIraq · · Score: 1

      That would leave far too many "base" life forms (which I visualize as plants) crowding the universe. It would have to be a one-time thing...with "a" being an expended form, "A" being a re-matured form, perhaps "@" as a one-time use form, or something like that.

      Perhaps if I'm bored in the near future I'll see about implementing this in my spare time.

      It will be interesting to see what this does to the populartion of B's and C's...though I don't think it will have much effect, since those evolve rapidly enough under the default setting to keep their own population down, and death by starvation is much less common in this model than death by consumption.

      Either way, thanks to the author for giving me something to kill time with. It's actually a very interesting simulation, especially if you start tweaking some of the default settings. Good stuff!

  11. Already Been Done...Differently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first version of this mutation of "Life" was done back in the 1980s. It's a genuine strategy game for 2 to 6 players.

  12. Rudy Rucker is the pop guru of CA's by Dioscorea · · Score: 1
    ...as well as being the surreal math geek's alternative to William Gibson...

    Check out his site

  13. Bad boy! Use sleep(3) or select(2) or usleep(3)! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    // Orig:
    void Delay(float dtime)
    {
    unsigned long start;
    unsigned long finish;

    start = clock();
    do
    {
    finish = clock();

    }while((finish - start)/(float) CLOCKS_PER_SEC < dtime);
    }

    // Simplest, gentlest on CPU would be:

    #include <unistd.h>

    void Delay(float dtime) {
    usleep((useconds_t) (dtime * 1000000.0));
    }

    // And add -Wall -O2 to your g++ as well!

  14. Re:Bad boy! Use sleep(3) or select(2) or usleep(3) by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

    Done. Join the sourceforge project. :)

  15. Re:Bad boy! Use sleep(3) or select(2) or usleep(3) by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

    Does cygwin support sleep or usleep? That actually originally what I had I think but it wouldn't work on cygwin.

  16. Re:Bad boy! Use sleep(3) or select(2) or usleep(3) by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

    Hmm seems to work fine now. Just went to a windows machine and tested it. Thanks.

  17. Re:Bad boy! Use sleep(3) or select(2) or usleep(3) by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

    Hmm works fine. :)

  18. shit negroponte-SimPity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Creating life! Actual life! and watching them live out their days and make families."

    SimNerds

  19. Re:Bad boy! Use sleep(3) or select(2) or usleep(3) by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

    Are you uploading these changes someplace? The file on sourceforge doesn't seem any different than earlier today. I may be missing something there... (I've always felt sf to be highly confusing...)

  20. hmm by jamoan · · Score: 0

    looks like The Matrix v0.4

  21. Life In The Fridge... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Are you talking about life on the computer or life in the fridge? Life in the fridge or on the bathroom ceiling can produce complex 3D patterns that you don't see on the computer -- as long as its not moving. ;)

  22. DJGPP by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

    I compiled it using DJGPP on Windows. First I had to add the pdcur24b module, which I had never needed before, from the v2tk download section. Second, the strtof (string to float, I assume) function came up undefined, so I commented out one line. This appears to disable, in some sense, the "t" option, whatever that is.

    --
    a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    1. Re:DJGPP by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      You should be able to use atof instead, I think. And I will now use DJGPP to make a native windows version, thanks to your tips. :) I began to use Microsoft Visual Studio the night before last to build a console application, which would require a full rewrite of all the console display functions. Your way sounds easier. ;) And yes, you've disabled the "t" option. The t option is fun because you can set it to a very low value and the universe runs by very fast. I will attempt to use atof or something else and get back to you.

    2. Re:DJGPP by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      I'll put up the DJGPP tomorrow, probably. I am playing with it right now. Thanks again for the tip. I have no way to get in touch with you outside of slashdot. Feel free to drop me an email if you want.

    3. Re:DJGPP by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Glad to have helped.

      I do most of my playing around programming using DJGPP, so that was my natural choice for compiling your program. I posted about my minor troubles in case someone else was trying to do the same thing with less success.

      Posting a reply to my Slashdot messages is probably the BEST way to contact me, I'm really bad about checking my email.

      Oh, and I enjoyed your program. I'm a bit of a sucker for silly things like that.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  23. ahem by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 1

    This is clearly not a next gerneration version of life. The point of life is not that every cell represents an organism, but that patterns can arrise or be designed that express complex behavior despite the fact that the rules underlying them are simple. The phenomena of simple rules leading to some amazing patterns is what made life exceptional. Creating a overerly complicated rule system is not an improvement on life, but a hinderance. What is much more interesting in the future for cellular automata are reversible automata. You can read more here.

    1. Re:ahem by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty neat website. I've always found COnway's Life kinda static and boring, that's all. To be honest I got interested in it again tonight because I found out you can implement a Turing machine inside of it. But anyway, this is a 0-player game in which cells attempt to emulate life. So that's at least two things it has in common. There's actually many others. I have implemented Conway's Game of Life in the past and feel like I understand it pretty well. My comparison of this program to CGoL was suggested to me by Slashdot staff. TO be honest I was just looing for comments about the simulation itself, or the code (which isn't so great yet). I am looking for comments and criticism about the program. I regret comparisons I've made, and mentioning wolfram's book. That seems to get a lot of you sidetracked.

    2. Re:ahem by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Well, I've seen 2-player implementation of Game of Life.
      In Populous 2. A spell called "fungus". You plant fungus in given pattern on your land, and the cells start growing according to rules of Game of Life. Upon contact with a human being, the human dies, fungus lives on. But it can't spread over hills or water etc. The trick is to make it grow in direction of the enemy settlements to kill the enemy people. Send floaters there, plant some exploding pattern, or grow a floater gun on your own land, directing it at the enemy territory. Fun!

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    3. Re:ahem by eyeye · · Score: 1

      I loved that game! wtf happened to bullfrog, populous 3 was shit.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    4. Re:ahem by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Hehe, I never officially owned that game so figuring this out was a big Eureka moment. Afterwards, I'd always play so as to get the best glider shots at the enemy. That and the baptimal fonts made the game.

  24. I just hope they fixed that stupid spinner by gregm · · Score: 1

    I mean does anyone's game of life spinner still work?

    1. Re:I just hope they fixed that stupid spinner by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      I seem to be able to create a spinner in xlife just fine. (???)

    2. Re:I just hope they fixed that stupid spinner by gregm · · Score: 1

      Ok... I was making a joke about that stupid board game called the game of life. it was just a joke for old people.

  25. What it is... by MaDeR · · Score: 1

    a new version of NetHack? ;)

    --
    What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
  26. Eeeek! by dreamer-of-rules · · Score: 1

    A demilich! Run away! Run away!

    --
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
  27. Netlogo by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

    The easiest framework to write simulations of this type is Netlogo.
    It's free, it's easy and quite powerful.

    Skim through the models library (File->Models Library) for a large selection of simulations written. Almost every model you open, while it seems to be very complex when run, the code is usually no more than 50 lines.

    For example try Biology->Ants. It shows a simulation of ants searching for food and when they find it, they will spread feromones to attract others.

    --
    ^_^
    1. Re:Netlogo by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      Hey that's pretty cool!

  28. Evolution of ethics by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The first time I encountered work like this was in A.K. Dewdney's column "Simulated Evolution" in Scientific American, May 1989. He presented the program "Palmiter's Protozoa", of which a nice implementation can be found here.

    But this is all kid's stuff. Such experiments can be much more interesting nowadays, with the power of computers as we have now. A student of mine studied the evolution of morals in a similar society. His program isn't online yet (will be soon, I guess), but his thesis is.

  29. bugfight by Washizu · · Score: 1

    Here's a shamless plug for my similar ecology simulator with food and bugs that duke it out for survival. They occasionally mutate, too.

    bugfight (Windows exe and perl sources included for other platforms)

    --
    OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
    1. Re:bugfight by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      So I checked that out and it looks very interesting. Unfortunately, I can't really tell what's going on. I'm gonna look at your code, and see what I think. I like your gui interface, and the fact that you used perl.

    2. Re:bugfight by Washizu · · Score: 1

      Thanks. The bugs are moving around and trying to get food. They die if their energy goes to zero and each species has different settings for how they reproduce and such.

      Feel free to email me with any questions or make modifications to it.

      --
      OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
  30. Maybe in a few years they could create a game.... by cfpresley · · Score: 1

    like Sim Earth. I don't know the coding behind the classic, but it does allow for mutations, and the critters do seem to move around similar to the GoL.

  31. errrr by Tom7 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't everybody do this in high school or college? Is there something special about this one?

    In my mind, something that reduced the complexity of Conway's game would be interesting, but there seems to be no reason to increase it, since loads of interesting things (like computation!) already happen at the macro scale.

    1. Re:errrr by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      I dunno. I'm the only person I know that's written one. I used to write things like that in high school and college, but they all sucked compared to this one. Here's what I got out of this post: many comments about the code, offers to help me improve it, some interesting links to similar kinds of things (usually things I didn't know about), and some compliments. Even if these types of comments were critical, they provided useful insights and interesting links. Comments that fell in to the above category made me very happy. Anyway, if you wrote a superior simulator in high school or college or even after that, please link me to it. ;)

  32. Re:Maybe in a few years they could create a game.. by barawn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SimLife is a better analogy.

    I actually own the original DOS version and still have the manual and everything. One thing SimLife teaches you is that it's really hard to build up a complex ecology in a confined space. If you use the smaller maps, it's almost impossible to get carnivores to survive. There's simply not enough room for them. If you use the largest maps, I've been able to get some stable carnivore populations, but not a ton.

    Fruit trees are also darn difficult to get to spread (because they require animals), whereas grasses are very easy (as they spread on the wind).

  33. Wireworld by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

    Have you seen wireworld? It is another cellular automata which has some very interesting properties.

    1. Re:Wireworld by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I like wireworld. :)

  34. i86 emulation? by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 1

    So is someone going to write an i86 (or whatever processor) emulator to run on a CGoL Turing Machine? then port Linux to it?

    (Only half kidding...)

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  35. Re:DJGPP (use Cygwin instead) by sjwaste · · Score: 1

    It's even easier if you use Cygwin. I didn't have to touch a line of code.

  36. Thank you guys. by SQL31337 · · Score: 1

    Thanks are due to everyone who posted insightful comments and criticism, and to all the people that linked me to interesting things like this. To the hundreds of you that have contacted me via email, if I haven't gotten back to you yet I will soon. Here's the future of jecology, mostly inspired by you guys, in a nutshell:

    Immediate future (next few weeks): DOS/Windows version; A linux screensaver; A GUI interface; A universe editor; A java port written by a third party that can run from the web

    Not so immediate future:
    A Gnorba component that will reside at the heart of all new functionality; networking interfaces to connect universes; A variety of OpenGL overlays that make it more interesting to watch

  37. depends on the simulator by fantomas · · Score: 1

    depends on the "simulation" - what level of complexity is the simulation? A 'model' is always a simplified version of a real environment - as you note .."in real life..." things are more complex. So it's down to how closely you want to move towards 'reality' and what is 'sufficient' for your purposes in the simulator. A simplified approach might be a closed energy model where the energy that leaves one part of the system is transfered to another, maybe it has to be more abstract than extending the ecology to additional life forms?