Well, the main idea is that currently a running program instance is a sum of factors, ie let's suppouse a java program; we have the bytecode, the JVM, the program parameters,and the system state.
Introspection adds three facts, a) the ability to inspect/analize/record actual or past runnings instances, b) the ability to try/apply different execution models and c) predictive behaviour to to try/use/evaluate the results.
Current optizing techniques are still 'static', we learn that is good or bad to use heuristic 'a' on situation 'b' (ie inlinning on a given cpu cache size, or your -l param example). What we are still not doing is dinamically learning/adjusting execution models (ie, if a given program is usually called to parse a big file, adjust allocation/prefetching to optimize that process).
Is not about JIT vs AOT, is 'globally static' versus 'locally dinamic' optimization. In simple words: if i am using always the same secuence of program actions, why the system is not 'smart' enough to detect-it and adjust for an optimal response? You need introspection to do that kind of behaviour.
I don't think so.
The actual introspection level is low, very low, in fact systems and not only VMs should be designed with introspection in mind to have a satisfactory environment for adaptative behaviour.
Think about usage patterns, maybe I am wrong but no actual VM execution model adapts program execution at running/history characteristics. We are still simply 'running' programs, the system/vm is not designed to learn/find the best way to run those programs at each execution instance, that's why i am talking about the need/possibility of an aditional indirection level.
We need to go further, examine local execution instances, ie. I dayly run a given program (say Jedit), but I am only using/executing 50% of the code, and usually on a strongly patterned way. What about a JVM that detects that kind of behaviours and adapt itself ?.
That's why I am talking about 'introspective' programming, programs that continously examine how other/selfs programs are run and extract/apply usefull information.
Why not spend our ever increasing computing power to create 'introspective' programs? I mean programs that dinamically examines and changes program behaviour, looking for 'better' execution modes.
VM's are a perfect environment for that kind of programming, ie, why not feature a JVM that dinamically adjust/perfect bytecode execution methods on a program by program basis?.
The article spots something old, optimizing is not a one size fits all matter, what is good for a given case is bad for another.
As our procressing power increases, we can achieve that 'programming about programming' indirection level.
Yes, a kernel is more difficult than a word processor, but that doesn't mean that implementors must implement stupid C++ code.
No, the problem is not if it's difficult or not, is the fact that C++ implies the existence of an intrinsic memory management behaviour (new/delete), that is not really compatible with the strict memory management a kernel must implement.
In fact, I'd be very much surprised if you didn't actually see the brain cells start to specialize. Some cells will become responsibe for directly manipulating the flight controls based on the inputs from the brain. Some will attempt to maintain aircraft equilibrium in absence of any other input from the brain. Others will control the aircraft as a whole, their location in the network giving them a better overall picture of the situation than, say, the cells near the controls.
That's not what I would expect on such a simple design. I think that activity patterns (output signals to control the plane) has to be made by some form of integration/average of neural activity across time, no single/small group of nervous cells be responsible of that level of activation. It seems more probable that the computing model is holistic , not specialized.
They were not trying to 'fly' or 'crash' the plane, that's only a input-output feedback system. If yoo feed 'crash sensors' instead of 'tilt sensors', the network will learn 'to crash the plane'.
Re:Optimizing schmoptimizing
on
Optimizing Perl
·
· Score: 1
Then, maybe it was a 'if it's not broken...' case.
If you really read all those sources, you should notice some facts:
Thousands of innocents civilans causalities.
The total and irresponsible ausence of plans for the peace, that's why Iraq is facing now the possibility to fall into a civil war.
The lack of international legal support for that war, hell, even UN president declared the war to be illegal.
The massive worldwide stance against the war.
The lies about mass destruction weapons, the world already knew that Iraq could not be a menace, they were severely controlled after first gulf war.
Foreign troops are starting to be perceived more as an ocupation force than a liberation one, mainly due to severe and continued collateral damages and the lack of a truly multinational presence (ie from the muslim area).
The fact that Iraq was not related to international terrorism, and that only the void of power created by not having a peace transition plan, and the chaos created in the interreign has facilated the stablishment of terrorists in Iraq.
The always ignored fact that Iraq is the second world wide oil producer, and the documented relation (oil bussines) between president's family and saudi monarchy.
I really want to believe the world to be safer now, but the factual data denies that possibility, terrorism has not been neutralized/controlled, innocent people keeps dying around the world, Iraq is in a chaotic state, Afghanistan is the world first producer of opium. Only an international effort to reduce massive injustice (oppression, misery, famine) could conceivably allow a reduction of terrorism support, no unilateral war action can lead to a global peace effect.
On a side note, pretending that the world don't care about Iraq, but US do, is plain demagogy.
1- We (advanced civilization) have build those weapons, the only logical way is to promote and actively do global disactivation/destruction of this kind of weapons.
2- Number of deaths-year vs disability-adjusted-life-years: Add the number of people severely injuried to the formula, and you'll wee how much worse are other death causes (ie car crashes).
3- Live years are not the only way to measure the well-being, true. Again add to the formula the number of people injuried to have a more realistic estimation.
$- Economic impact: The impact is only due to the politic/periodistic pressure, with a convenient (more realistic) treatment the impact would be much lower.
That being said, only addressing the base conditions that facilates terrorism (mainly oppression/injustice) with appropiate development and aid planning the world will suceed to erradicate that XXI century plague. We can do-i.
Re:Except Animals are more likely to be right.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Random sequences often don't look random, and with the sheer number of events happenning in the world every day, strange coincidences are to be expected.
Yes, that's a very reasonable position, but I have a hard time with this kind of 'common sense'.
If we try to apply logic, we'll see that 'random' is not a well defined term, in fact 'random' is indistingishable from 'extremely complex order', and that fact implies that we cannot rule out 'thinfoil hat' explanations, the best we can do is to recognize that we simply don't know. After all, pretending the world to be random is no diferent that pretending religion is for real.
But in Ruby, there's a convention like in Scheme (and maybe others): methods ending in "!", like "array.sort!" will sort the array in-place, and the other methods return a new sorted copy.Nice!
Nice what?, the previous phrase or his copy?
Excuse me, silly question, it's the previous phrase!
Slashdot Mirror
The only 'logical' way to eliminate buffer overflows was already know 30+ years ago: Don't make data areas executable!, that simple!
Now if after 30+ years, computer industry still is unable/uninterested to fix that simple problem, That's the real problem!
Stop blamming the tools (languages/etc) or the people (programmers/admins/etc), is the system stupid.
Mod AC post up, it's informative.
Well, the main idea is that currently a running program instance is a sum of factors, ie let's suppouse a java program; we have the bytecode, the JVM, the program parameters,and the system state.
Introspection adds three facts, a) the ability to inspect/analize/record actual or past runnings instances, b) the ability to try/apply different execution models and c) predictive behaviour to to try/use/evaluate the results.
Current optizing techniques are still 'static', we learn that is good or bad to use heuristic 'a' on situation 'b' (ie inlinning on a given cpu cache size, or your -l param example). What we are still not doing is dinamically learning/adjusting execution models (ie, if a given program is usually called to parse a big file, adjust allocation/prefetching to optimize that process).
Is not about JIT vs AOT, is 'globally static' versus 'locally dinamic' optimization. In simple words: if i am using always the same secuence of program actions, why the system is not 'smart' enough to detect-it and adjust for an optimal response? You need introspection to do that kind of behaviour.
We do. That's what modern JVMs do.
I don't think so.
The actual introspection level is low, very low, in fact systems and not only VMs should be designed with introspection in mind to have a satisfactory environment for adaptative behaviour.
Think about usage patterns, maybe I am wrong but no actual VM execution model adapts program execution at running/history characteristics. We are still simply 'running' programs, the system/vm is not designed to learn/find the best way to run those programs at each execution instance, that's why i am talking about the need/possibility of an aditional indirection level.
We need to go further, examine local execution instances, ie. I dayly run a given program (say Jedit), but I am only using/executing 50% of the code, and usually on a strongly patterned way. What about a JVM that detects that kind of behaviours and adapt itself ?.
That's why I am talking about 'introspective' programming, programs that continously examine how other/selfs programs are run and extract/apply usefull information.
Why not spend our ever increasing computing power to create 'introspective' programs? I mean programs that dinamically examines and changes program behaviour, looking for 'better' execution modes.
VM's are a perfect environment for that kind of programming, ie, why not feature a JVM that dinamically adjust/perfect bytecode execution methods on a program by program basis?.
The article spots something old, optimizing is not a one size fits all matter, what is good for a given case is bad for another.
As our procressing power increases, we can achieve that 'programming about programming' indirection level.
One person, one vote.
Other than that I am expecting young people to wake up and kick that lier ass.
do you think there's much chance of Sun ever hosting a common UI components repository?
It would be great, to have the graphical (componentable) behaviour in one layer, and the whole netbeans base as an extension, indeed,
What strikes me badly is: why it's not already done? Wasn't Java and OOP in general all about encapsulation.?
Don't take wrong I've been doing OOP and java for years, but I can't understand why such a conceptually simple question is not already resolved.
The fascinating history of H.P. Blavatsky 'The People of Blue Mountains'.
Probably those small people of Indonesia had also his own myths about why and how the were there.
C++ code without objects?
The core of Windows in C++? Maybe I am wrong, but If my memory serves me well, it was C and asm.
or dont try to make it real time too.
Yes, a kernel is more difficult than a word processor, but that doesn't mean that implementors must implement stupid C++ code.
No, the problem is not if it's difficult or not, is the fact that C++ implies the existence of an intrinsic memory management behaviour (new/delete), that is not really compatible with the strict memory management a kernel must implement.
VB3 was the best.
In fact, I'd be very much surprised if you didn't actually see the brain cells start to specialize. Some cells will become responsibe for directly manipulating the flight controls based on the inputs from the brain. Some will attempt to maintain aircraft equilibrium in absence of any other input from the brain. Others will control the aircraft as a whole, their location in the network giving them a better overall picture of the situation than, say, the cells near the controls.
That's not what I would expect on such a simple design. I think that activity patterns (output signals to control the plane) has to be made by some form of integration/average of neural activity across time, no single/small group of nervous cells be responsible of that level of activation. It seems more probable that the computing model is holistic , not specialized.
By design.
They were not trying to 'fly' or 'crash' the plane, that's only a input-output feedback system. If yoo feed 'crash sensors' instead of 'tilt sensors', the network will learn 'to crash the plane'.
Then, maybe it was a 'if it's not broken...' case.
More propaganda alert.
If you really read all those sources, you should notice some facts:
Thousands of innocents civilans causalities.
The total and irresponsible ausence of plans for the peace, that's why Iraq is facing now the possibility to fall into a civil war.
The lack of international legal support for that war, hell, even UN president declared the war to be illegal.
The massive worldwide stance against the war.
The lies about mass destruction weapons, the world already knew that Iraq could not be a menace, they were severely controlled after first gulf war.
Foreign troops are starting to be perceived more as an ocupation force than a liberation one, mainly due to severe and continued collateral damages and the lack of a truly multinational presence (ie from the muslim area).
The fact that Iraq was not related to international terrorism, and that only the void of power created by not having a peace transition plan, and the chaos created in the interreign has facilated the stablishment of terrorists in Iraq.
The always ignored fact that Iraq is the second world wide oil producer, and the documented relation (oil bussines) between president's family and saudi monarchy.
I really want to believe the world to be safer now, but the factual data denies that possibility, terrorism has not been neutralized/controlled, innocent people keeps dying around the world, Iraq is in a chaotic state, Afghanistan is the world first producer of opium. Only an international effort to reduce massive injustice (oppression, misery, famine) could conceivably allow a reduction of terrorism support, no unilateral war action can lead to a global peace effect. On a side note, pretending that the world don't care about Iraq, but US do, is plain demagogy.
Easy answer: Birth rate control.
Propaganda alert.
So you think the world is safer now than two years ago?. Well, I am sorry, but the vast majority of the world thinks otherwise.
As for the ridiculously simple Iraq state description, what world press do you read? :)
Extend your analisis:
1- We (advanced civilization) have build those weapons, the only logical way is to promote and actively do global disactivation/destruction of this kind of weapons.
2- Number of deaths-year vs disability-adjusted-life-years: Add the number of people severely injuried to the formula, and you'll wee how much worse are other death causes (ie car crashes).
3- Live years are not the only way to measure the well-being, true. Again add to the formula the number of people injuried to have a more realistic estimation.
$- Economic impact: The impact is only due to the politic/periodistic pressure, with a convenient (more realistic) treatment the impact would be much lower.
That being said, only addressing the base conditions that facilates terrorism (mainly oppression/injustice) with appropiate development and aid planning the world will suceed to erradicate that XXI century plague. We can do-i.
One more item for that terrible list.
Car crash kills > >41.821 / year 2000
Random sequences often don't look random, and with the sheer number of events happenning in the world every day, strange coincidences are to be expected.
Yes, that's a very reasonable position, but I have a hard time with this kind of 'common sense'.
If we try to apply logic, we'll see that 'random' is not a well defined term, in fact 'random' is indistingishable from 'extremely complex order', and that fact implies that we cannot rule out 'thinfoil hat' explanations, the best we can do is to recognize that we simply don't know. After all, pretending the world to be random is no diferent that pretending religion is for real.
But in Ruby, there's a convention like in Scheme (and maybe others): methods ending in "!", like "array.sort!" will sort the array in-place, and the other methods return a new sorted copy.Nice!
Nice what?, the previous phrase or his copy? Excuse me, silly question, it's the previous phrase!
Agile? hmmm.. why not Fittness Programming?
I can see the project leader: "OK, Move those bits boys! MOVE! MOVE!"