One cannot legislate perfection in a field where perfection is not attainable. Did not Fred Brooks show that the essential complexity of algorithmic software cannot be avoided? But all is not lost. Switch to a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem will disappear.
There is only one way to insure that mission-critical software is 100% reliable: Abandon the 150-year old algorithmic software model (the Turing Computing model) and embrace the non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model (the behavioral computing model). Don't say you weren't warned, Airbus, Lockheed, Boeing, NASA, FAA, etc... The internet does not forget. ahahaha...
Oracle's Chief Security Officer Mary Ann Davidson should be next on the list, IMO, for once more comparing software engineering to bridge and building engineering.
FTA: While their current analysis uses hand-optimized code on a set of small scientific kernels, the results are striking. On average, Cell is eight times faster and at least eight times more power efficient than current Opteron and Itanium processors,
The Cell processor may be faster but how easy is it to implement an optimizing development system that eliminates the need to hand-optimized the code? Is not programming productivity just as important as performance? I suspect that the Cell's design is not as elegant (from a programmer's POV) as it could have been, only because it was not designed with an elegant software model in mind. I don't think it is a good idea to design a software model around a CPU. It is much wiser to design the CPU around an established model. In this vein, I don't see the cell as a truly revolutionary processor because, like every other processor in existence, it is optimized for the algorithmic software model. A truly innovative design would have embraced a non-algorithmic, reactive, synchronous model, thereby killing two birds with one stone: solving the current software reliability crisis while leaving other processors in dust in terms of performance. One man's opinion.
That's the Intelligent Design answer and it does not seem to be contradictory, at least from this vantage point. Nor does it lead to an infinite regress. IOW, what came first, the processor or the registers? the yin or the yang? It's all indivisible.
I don't think it's a sign of immaturity. It's a sign of health. There's no ultimate 'do it this way'. And if someone thinks they've found the One True Path, just go and code it!
Some of us are working on it. You don't expect one person to change a century-old paradigm, do you? And you are mistaken about immaturity. The current model is more than just immature. It's deadly wrong in more ways than one. When it comes to computing, there is indeed one true path. One day soon, the scales will fall from our Turing-machine encrusted eyes and we will see the light.
The very fact that this subject is still being debated is a sign of the chronic immaturity of the computer industry. Soon, people will begin to realize that we've been doing it wrong ever since Lady Ada wrote the first algorithm (table of instructions) for Babbage's analytical engine. As a result, we are all struggling with a mess of hundreds of operating systems and computer languages that are all competing against each other. Worse, our applications and OSes are buggy and some of us (Brooks) have given up hope of finding a solution. It's a veritable crisis. Switch to a non-algorithmic, signal-based sycnchronous software model and the problem will disappear, along with the interminable, useless debates. After more than a century and a half, I would say the time is just about right for a change of paradigm.
This is lame. It's dishonest to put words in somebody's mouth that they did not speak or make claims on their behalf. May your karma catch up with you. ahahaha...
Individual pieces aren't really any simpler either. In fact, if you want your kernel to scale, to work well with lots of processes, you are going to run into a simple problem: multitasking.
This is true but only because threads are asynchronous. Linus and other OS writers may know Linux and Unix but they don't understand the hidden nature of software. If they did, they would know that basing software construction on the algorithm is the real reason for the current crisis. Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem would disappear. Of course, in such an environment, every application becomes a simple extension of the system and there is no operating system per se.
We need to start seeing a program for what it really is, a communication system. During execution, every statement or instruction in an algorithmic procedure essentially sends a signal to the next statement, saying: 'I'm done, now it's your turn.' A statement should be seen as an elementary object having a single input and a single output. It waits for an input signal, does something, and then sends an output signal to the next object. Multiple objects are linked together to form a one-dimensional (single path) sequential chain. The problem is that, in an algorithm, communication is limited to only two objects at a time, a sender and a receiver. Consequently, even though there may be forks (conditional branches) along the way, a signal may only take one path at a time.
This is one of the main reasons that we need to move to a signal-based, synchronous software model. Monolithic or not, we have all missed the software boat. And we've been missing the boat for a long time, for more than 150 years in fact, ever since Lady Ada wrote the first table of instructions (i.e., algorithm) for Babbage's analytical engine. It's time to do it right and it's never too late to change.
Current operating systems have two characteristics that make them unreliable and insecure: They are huge and they have very poor fault isolation.
That is not the real reason. The reason that current OSes are bad is that software is based on the algorithm, a practice that is as old as Lady Lovelace and Charles Babbage. Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem will disapear. This is the premise of Project COSA.
Not a bad goal at all, and if it's open source they can't cheat by promoting a specific goal such as walking in the software.
Yes. AI scientists have a bad habit of making implausible claims for their creations. The open approach will keep them honest and is to be commended. At the very least, such a robot needs several types of learning functions including perceptual, short and long term memory mechanisms, concept formation, pattern completion, anticipatory behavior, motor learning and coordination, operant and classical conditioning, etc... Does anybody know what sorts of NNs and what learning principles are being used in this bot?
I think you're wrong. Just like every other example we've thought only "true" AI would be able to solve, this is one which a tremendous amount of computing power and clever algorithms will win the day. After it's solved, people will say, "well it wasn't really a good test of true AI because..."
True, that is, if you have 100 years and deep financial resources. DARPA wants this technology yesterday.
I believe someone will solve this particular problem. Since I also don't believe that the the P=NP problem will be solved, I cannot share your opinion that "true" AI will result.
I must disagree. The existence proof of intelligence is there for everyone to observe in humans and animals. The P=NP problem has nothing to do with it. Our machines are already partially intelligent. Sure, it will take more than just an incremental process (we need real breakthroughs) to arrive at true AI but all indications are that biological intelligence can be emulated in a machine.
You can build the safest car in the world but there is always a need to be able to take a very quick decision to avoid some other idiot who might be breaking the rules of the road and not be in an automated car... still, if we all had them...
This is the Grand Challenge I was really waiting for. I believe that the experience gained in the previous Grand Challenges is practically useless for this new one. This new challenge will involve true AI, that is, AI that has true general learning capabilities and the ability to adapt to new situations. A true autonomous vehicle will need to have common sense understanding and the only way it can have this is by learning through trial and error, imitation/observation, the capability of being trained via communication (with a trainer) and the well known principles of operant and classical conditioning. In addition the AI will need robust and sophisticated perceptual (visual and auditory) system in addition to sound motor control/learning mechanism. This AI will forcibly be based on some sort of neural network or a integrated collection of neurla networks.
What Darpa is asking for is none other than the solution of the AI puzzle. I'm afraid this is worth much more than a few million dollars.
your "silver bullet" is essential an agent based system
No, it is not. It is a reactive, synchronous software model. Look it up. "Agent-based system" is a loose term that means essentially nothing. A reactive synchronous system is deterministic by definition. It is for this reason that reactive languages like Esterel are used in mission-critical software. You're wasting my time.
Are you seriously sugesting that Suns decline had nothing to do with Microsofts tactics.
No. It's a dog-eat-dog world. It's sad, I know, but there is no use in whining about it too much. Sun's forte has always been its microprocessor design know-how, IMO. That's where they should have concentrated their passion and resources. And I'm not talking about going head to head against big boys like Intel and AMD. Intel and AMD are good at what they do (within their chosen paradigm) and no third party is going to unseat them. However there is a huge market for embedded processors. There is always room for improvements. There is even room for a revolution in the microprocessor business, seeing that the current paradigm has not changed much since the days of Babbage and Lady Lovelace. Aren't all CPUs optimized for the algorithm? Isn't it time we move to a different software model, one that will solve all the nastiest problem in computing: unreliability? I think so. This is Sun's opportunity to kick some ass, IMO. They may even have a chance to kill multiple birds with one stone. There is a possibility of unseating the all-powerful Microsoft/Intel/AMD/x86 cartel from its lofty perch. I'm sure many on this forum would like that.
Is Sun up to it? I don't think so. There is a need for vision as balls. Schwartz seems more like a "cafe latte" kind of guy. I don't hink he has what it takes. According to a recent article at Technology Review, he "failed to bring up two keys areas in Sun's past: semiconductors and microprocessor architecture". We'll see.
Yes, that's likely to happen. Two words: Chicken, egg.
I agree to a certain extent. But I've got one powerful factor on my side. The software crisis is not going away. Hell, it's getting worse every day. The industry (and society) is bound to come around to my way of seeing things. How much more pain can they take? ahahaha...
And I cant believe that I spend 30 minutes on an offtopic post, just to debunk your "silver bullet".
It took me some time to decide whether or not to reply to your message. You are a typical, know-it-all and pompous Slashdot nerd and the moderators who gave you mod points should hang their heads in shame. Your arguments are based on ignorance and I refute them on my site. Believe me when I say that I've seen them all.
Jonathan Schwartz is making the same mistakes that got McNealy and Sun into trouble. Instead of concentrating on creating new avant-garde technologies (which is what the old Sun was about), McNealy launched a Microsoft and Linux-bashing propaganda campaign. Now we see Schwartz using the same hype tactics. It's a shame because I liked the old Sun. I really did. Will it return? I am not so sure anymore.
Jesus came for the purpose of paying the debt for our sins. Everything must be paid for. It's a karma thing and we should be grateful. Next time he shows up, he won't be turning the other cheek, I can tell you that. It's gonna be ass kicking time. And he won't be looking for righteousness in the world (there is none). He'll be looking for faith. If you understand anything about Paul's teachings, you would know this.
Hey Phil. Aren't you the crackpot who went on and on for years on usenet about your "feelings of worthlessness"? You're psychotic and you know it. You love to dish out ad hominems but you can't take it, can you? I've got news for you. This ball is huge and rolling fast. You can't stop it, man. ahahaha...
I'm a Jesus Believing Christian. Your post was just fine up until the point you started gloating and laughing at Phil. Perhaps you should take a moment to reflect on how you failed to behave like Jesus taught us.
If you think you can do as Jesus taught, you got a few things to learn. He taught specifically against self-righteousness. You apparently missed that part. I'll make fun of anybody who mocks my God and leads the sheep astray with their crap. If you think that laughing at Phil is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. And if you can't take the heat, stay out of the fire.
If you keep this up, you'll just get marked as a troll, and it'll be harder for you to get your message out.
I'm willing to take that risk.
How about writing a demo app instead?;)
No can do. Unless I see some hard cash thrown my way, this is the way it's gonna be. I planted an idea. If it's any good, it'll grow into a beautiful tree. If not, life goes on.
I scare you, don't I, Phil? You're an atheist; I'm a Christian. You're a libertarian; I'm a Christian. You believe in time travel (like Stephen Hawking, Kurt Godel, Brian Greene and the rest of the crackpots and charlatans in the physics community); I'm a God believing Christian. You dress up in your little Klingon or Ferengi outfit; I'm still a Christian, laughing at you, unafraid. ahahaha...
There is a good possibility that some other player may come out of nowhere and pass up both Intel and AMD. The reason is that current processors are based on a computing model that has not changed drastically since the days of Charles Babbage and Lady Lovelace. They are all optiminsed for the algorithm. Problem is that basing software on the alogorithm is the primary reason for the current software reliability crisis. Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem will disappear. Will either Intel or AMD heed the warning? I doubt it. Those two are cookies cut from the same cookie cutter. They are way too busy looking for advantages within the current paradigm to notice the world passing them by before it's too late. Fortunately, there are other players in the game and somebody is bound to see the writing on the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
One cannot legislate perfection in a field where perfection is not attainable. Did not Fred Brooks show that the essential complexity of algorithmic software cannot be avoided? But all is not lost. Switch to a non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem will disappear.
There is only one way to insure that mission-critical software is 100% reliable: Abandon the 150-year old algorithmic software model (the Turing Computing model) and embrace the non-algorithmic, signal-based, synchronous software model (the behavioral computing model). Don't say you weren't warned, Airbus, Lockheed, Boeing, NASA, FAA, etc... The internet does not forget. ahahaha...
You do realise that that page is written by a crank, don't you?
ahahaha... Your opinion matters to me because of what, again?
The Real Enemies of Software Reliability
Guess what? Oracle is on the list. ahahaha...
Oracle's Chief Security Officer Mary Ann Davidson should be next on the list, IMO, for once more comparing software engineering to bridge and building engineering.
FTA: While their current analysis uses hand-optimized code on a set of small scientific kernels, the results are striking. On average, Cell is eight times faster and at least eight times more power efficient than current Opteron and Itanium processors,
The Cell processor may be faster but how easy is it to implement an optimizing development system that eliminates the need to hand-optimized the code? Is not programming productivity just as important as performance? I suspect that the Cell's design is not as elegant (from a programmer's POV) as it could have been, only because it was not designed with an elegant software model in mind. I don't think it is a good idea to design a software model around a CPU. It is much wiser to design the CPU around an established model. In this vein, I don't see the cell as a truly revolutionary processor because, like every other processor in existence, it is optimized for the algorithmic software model. A truly innovative design would have embraced a non-algorithmic, reactive, synchronous model, thereby killing two birds with one stone: solving the current software reliability crisis while leaving other processors in dust in terms of performance. One man's opinion.
That's the Intelligent Design answer and it does not seem to be contradictory, at least from this vantage point. Nor does it lead to an infinite regress. IOW, what came first, the processor or the registers? the yin or the yang? It's all indivisible.
I don't think it's a sign of immaturity. It's a sign of health. There's no ultimate 'do it this way'. And if someone thinks they've found the One True Path, just go and code it!
Some of us are working on it. You don't expect one person to change a century-old paradigm, do you? And you are mistaken about immaturity. The current model is more than just immature. It's deadly wrong in more ways than one. When it comes to computing, there is indeed one true path. One day soon, the scales will fall from our Turing-machine encrusted eyes and we will see the light.
The very fact that this subject is still being debated is a sign of the chronic immaturity of the computer industry. Soon, people will begin to realize that we've been doing it wrong ever since Lady Ada wrote the first algorithm (table of instructions) for Babbage's analytical engine. As a result, we are all struggling with a mess of hundreds of operating systems and computer languages that are all competing against each other. Worse, our applications and OSes are buggy and some of us (Brooks) have given up hope of finding a solution. It's a veritable crisis. Switch to a non-algorithmic, signal-based sycnchronous software model and the problem will disappear, along with the interminable, useless debates. After more than a century and a half, I would say the time is just about right for a change of paradigm.
This is lame. It's dishonest to put words in somebody's mouth that they did not speak or make claims on their behalf. May your karma catch up with you. ahahaha...
Individual pieces aren't really any simpler either. In fact, if you want your kernel to scale, to work well with lots of processes, you are going to run into a simple problem: multitasking.
This is true but only because threads are asynchronous. Linus and other OS writers may know Linux and Unix but they don't understand the hidden nature of software. If they did, they would know that basing software construction on the algorithm is the real reason for the current crisis. Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem would disappear. Of course, in such an environment, every application becomes a simple extension of the system and there is no operating system per se.
We need to start seeing a program for what it really is, a communication system. During execution, every statement or instruction in an algorithmic procedure essentially sends a signal to the next statement, saying: 'I'm done, now it's your turn.' A statement should be seen as an elementary object having a single input and a single output. It waits for an input signal, does something, and then sends an output signal to the next object. Multiple objects are linked together to form a one-dimensional (single path) sequential chain. The problem is that, in an algorithm, communication is limited to only two objects at a time, a sender and a receiver. Consequently, even though there may be forks (conditional branches) along the way, a signal may only take one path at a time.
This is one of the main reasons that we need to move to a signal-based, synchronous software model. Monolithic or not, we have all missed the software boat. And we've been missing the boat for a long time, for more than 150 years in fact, ever since Lady Ada wrote the first table of instructions (i.e., algorithm) for Babbage's analytical engine. It's time to do it right and it's never too late to change.
Current operating systems have two characteristics that make them unreliable and insecure: They are huge and they have very poor fault isolation.
That is not the real reason. The reason that current OSes are bad is that software is based on the algorithm, a practice that is as old as Lady Lovelace and Charles Babbage. Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem will disapear. This is the premise of Project COSA.
Not a bad goal at all, and if it's open source they can't cheat by promoting a specific goal such as walking in the software.
Yes. AI scientists have a bad habit of making implausible claims for their creations. The open approach will keep them honest and is to be commended. At the very least, such a robot needs several types of learning functions including perceptual, short and long term memory mechanisms, concept formation, pattern completion, anticipatory behavior, motor learning and coordination, operant and classical conditioning, etc... Does anybody know what sorts of NNs and what learning principles are being used in this bot?
I think you're wrong. Just like every other example we've thought only "true" AI would be able to solve, this is one which a tremendous amount of computing power and clever algorithms will win the day. After it's solved, people will say, "well it wasn't really a good test of true AI because..."
True, that is, if you have 100 years and deep financial resources. DARPA wants this technology yesterday.
I believe someone will solve this particular problem. Since I also don't believe that the the P=NP problem will be solved, I cannot share your opinion that "true" AI will result.
I must disagree. The existence proof of intelligence is there for everyone to observe in humans and animals. The P=NP problem has nothing to do with it. Our machines are already partially intelligent. Sure, it will take more than just an incremental process (we need real breakthroughs) to arrive at true AI but all indications are that biological intelligence can be emulated in a machine.
You can build the safest car in the world but there is always a need to be able to take a very quick decision to avoid some other idiot who might be breaking the rules of the road and not be in an automated car... still, if we all had them...
This is the Grand Challenge I was really waiting for. I believe that the experience gained in the previous Grand Challenges is practically useless for this new one. This new challenge will involve true AI, that is, AI that has true general learning capabilities and the ability to adapt to new situations. A true autonomous vehicle will need to have common sense understanding and the only way it can have this is by learning through trial and error, imitation/observation, the capability of being trained via communication (with a trainer) and the well known principles of operant and classical conditioning. In addition the AI will need robust and sophisticated perceptual (visual and auditory) system in addition to sound motor control/learning mechanism. This AI will forcibly be based on some sort of neural network or a integrated collection of neurla networks.
What Darpa is asking for is none other than the solution of the AI puzzle. I'm afraid this is worth much more than a few million dollars.
your "silver bullet" is essential an agent based system
No, it is not. It is a reactive, synchronous software model. Look it up. "Agent-based system" is a loose term that means essentially nothing. A reactive synchronous system is deterministic by definition. It is for this reason that reactive languages like Esterel are used in mission-critical software. You're wasting my time.
Are you seriously sugesting that Suns decline had nothing to do with Microsofts tactics.
No. It's a dog-eat-dog world. It's sad, I know, but there is no use in whining about it too much. Sun's forte has always been its microprocessor design know-how, IMO. That's where they should have concentrated their passion and resources. And I'm not talking about going head to head against big boys like Intel and AMD. Intel and AMD are good at what they do (within their chosen paradigm) and no third party is going to unseat them. However there is a huge market for embedded processors. There is always room for improvements. There is even room for a revolution in the microprocessor business, seeing that the current paradigm has not changed much since the days of Babbage and Lady Lovelace. Aren't all CPUs optimized for the algorithm? Isn't it time we move to a different software model, one that will solve all the nastiest problem in computing: unreliability? I think so. This is Sun's opportunity to kick some ass, IMO. They may even have a chance to kill multiple birds with one stone. There is a possibility of unseating the all-powerful Microsoft/Intel/AMD/x86 cartel from its lofty perch. I'm sure many on this forum would like that.
Is Sun up to it? I don't think so. There is a need for vision as balls. Schwartz seems more like a "cafe latte" kind of guy. I don't hink he has what it takes. According to a recent article at Technology Review, he "failed to bring up two keys areas in Sun's past: semiconductors and microprocessor architecture". We'll see.
Yes, that's likely to happen. Two words: Chicken, egg.
I agree to a certain extent. But I've got one powerful factor on my side. The software crisis is not going away. Hell, it's getting worse every day. The industry (and society) is bound to come around to my way of seeing things. How much more pain can they take? ahahaha...
And I cant believe that I spend 30 minutes on an offtopic post, just to debunk your "silver bullet".
It took me some time to decide whether or not to reply to your message. You are a typical, know-it-all and pompous Slashdot nerd and the moderators who gave you mod points should hang their heads in shame. Your arguments are based on ignorance and I refute them on my site. Believe me when I say that I've seen them all.
Devil's Advocate.
Next time, think before you put your foot in your mouth. Also, it would not hurt to become familiar with the point of view you are criticizing.
Jonathan Schwartz is making the same mistakes that got McNealy and Sun into trouble. Instead of concentrating on creating new avant-garde technologies (which is what the old Sun was about), McNealy launched a Microsoft and Linux-bashing propaganda campaign. Now we see Schwartz using the same hype tactics. It's a shame because I liked the old Sun. I really did. Will it return? I am not so sure anymore.
Jesus came for the purpose of paying the debt for our sins. Everything must be paid for. It's a karma thing and we should be grateful. Next time he shows up, he won't be turning the other cheek, I can tell you that. It's gonna be ass kicking time. And he won't be looking for righteousness in the world (there is none). He'll be looking for faith. If you understand anything about Paul's teachings, you would know this.
Hey Phil. Aren't you the crackpot who went on and on for years on usenet about your "feelings of worthlessness"? You're psychotic and you know it. You love to dish out ad hominems but you can't take it, can you? I've got news for you. This ball is huge and rolling fast. You can't stop it, man. ahahaha...
I'm a Jesus Believing Christian. Your post was just fine up until the point you started gloating and laughing at Phil. Perhaps you should take a moment to reflect on how you failed to behave like Jesus taught us.
If you think you can do as Jesus taught, you got a few things to learn. He taught specifically against self-righteousness. You apparently missed that part. I'll make fun of anybody who mocks my God and leads the sheep astray with their crap. If you think that laughing at Phil is bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. And if you can't take the heat, stay out of the fire.
If you keep this up, you'll just get marked as a troll, and it'll be harder for you to get your message out.
;)
I'm willing to take that risk.
How about writing a demo app instead?
No can do. Unless I see some hard cash thrown my way, this is the way it's gonna be. I planted an idea. If it's any good, it'll grow into a beautiful tree. If not, life goes on.
I scare you, don't I, Phil? You're an atheist; I'm a Christian. You're a libertarian; I'm a Christian. You believe in time travel (like Stephen Hawking, Kurt Godel, Brian Greene and the rest of the crackpots and charlatans in the physics community); I'm a God believing Christian. You dress up in your little Klingon or Ferengi outfit; I'm still a Christian, laughing at you, unafraid. ahahaha...
There is a good possibility that some other player may come out of nowhere and pass up both Intel and AMD. The reason is that current processors are based on a computing model that has not changed drastically since the days of Charles Babbage and Lady Lovelace. They are all optiminsed for the algorithm. Problem is that basing software on the alogorithm is the primary reason for the current software reliability crisis. Switch to a signal-based, synchronous software model and the problem will disappear. Will either Intel or AMD heed the warning? I doubt it. Those two are cookies cut from the same cookie cutter. They are way too busy looking for advantages within the current paradigm to notice the world passing them by before it's too late. Fortunately, there are other players in the game and somebody is bound to see the writing on the wall.
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: