Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- From: André Thieme <address.good.until.2006.dec.22@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:37:29 +0100
Jon Harrop schrieb:
André Thieme wrote:Progress is coming exponetially, it is not linear.
Given that "progress" can't be quantified, a statement about its
mathematical evolution isn't very useful...
Progress in the world of IT can be measured in some ways. The number of
calculations a CPU can do per time unit could be a way to do that.
Depending on what function underlies the technology an exponential graph
looks like a straight line on some parts, and therewith linear.
We're going to hit problems in physics pretty soon.
Well, this has happened several times already, as you had read on the
website as I provided. Every time a new paradigm helped out.
Of course there will be limit some day, but it will be several decades
before we hit it. So there is still enough room for improvements.
That is correct. In ca. 5-7 years the best supercomputer on earth will
already have the calculation capabilies like the human brain.
IIRC, Bishop said that the fastest computers could simulate 12 neurons
realistically in real time in 1996. That is over a billion times fewer than
found in the human brain.
Hmm, that assumptions is not too unrealistic.
I don't know what he meant by "the fastest computers". If he was talking
about a single cpu it could have been pretty close.
You probably read Kurzweils essay, that's why you answered me.
So you already know his calculation.
If it was a single cpu then super computers were ca. 1000 times faster.
This leaves us with a million. Then it will have been nearly two decades,
giving us the factor of a million.
Of course the software is missing for real AI. How we can get the software is
described in that article from Kurzweil.
So even if we can make this unfathomable hardware we can't program it.
It is programmable. But we will have the hardware first and then the
software.
Anyway: we don't need such a strong intelligence to make Lisp compilers
generate faster code. It will happen gradually. Over the coming years
Lisp compilers will generate better and better code. Also Python will
get faster.
That is a very bizarre statement to make. People want to know how fast
language implementations are on a given computer. Saying that Lisp will be
as fast as other languages already are is fruitless.
The statement might be bizarre if you don't take enough information into
account. Lisp already runs fast in almost all cases, comes close to C.
Otherwise there is still asm...
I am just saying that in ca 30-50 years all "programming" will result in
programs that execute as the same speed. But in these days everyone will
be a programmer. It will be a task that everyone can do. Most programs
will be made within seconds.
Perhaps it will be interesting to see what happens when computers are 1,000x
faster and Stalin-compiled Scheme can compile a simple program in under
1sec. I doubt that will cause any radical shift in tool use though.
I don't know Stalin. Is there no computer on which it can compile a minimal
program in less than one second?
André
--
.
- References:
- Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- From: Rob Thorpe
- Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- From: André Thieme
- Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- Prev by Date: Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- Next by Date: Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- Previous by thread: Re: P.S.
- Next by thread: Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
