From: Kevin Osborne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 01 2006 - 08:57:17 MST
without putting a fire under yet another religious programming
language 'discussion' of attrition, I have what for me is an important
question in regards to AGI development and seed developer syllabus:
what programming language are we going to code an AGI with?
when answering this question I probably want to dismiss convoluted
combinations of systems, specialist languages/compilers that may
(already?) be developed for AGI purposes and focus on:
what's the best language to develop the AGI workhorse code in?
'workhorse' here means the code that will bridge the gap from the
not-so 'intelligent' systems we have now and be able to bootstrap a
higher semantic-language/instruction-set that will be part of the
first steps towards an AGI.
Here's a hopefully not-too-biased critique-that-invites-critique of
some of the choices as they stand:
C: I'm separating this from C++ as, well, most of the crack C
programmers I've worked with view C++ as some kind of leperous cousin;
they're able to make a host of criticisms of C++ in contrast to C but
I'm not one to repeat them succinctly I think. In summary;
- it's the fastest; without question. It also runs on every board on
the planet. There are a host of _great_ tools and compilers from the
likes of GCC, Sun, Intel, IBM, HP etc. If you want to write your own
OS kernel then you'll be doing it in C.
- the #1 choice for RTOS. if you want it to run real-time, it'll be in
C. I''ve personally had exposure to the VxWorks and Nucleus hard
real-time systems and a soft real-time Linux (Monta Vista). Even if
don't end up with
real-time seems to be an intuitive requirement for replicating a range
of faculties. That said, real-time code is very limited to what it can
do; it runs out of puff pretty quickly when climbing the OSI stack.
- Macros are a great language feature, and can provide some of the
extensibility and run-time switching needed.
- great debugging tools and lint collectors like Purify that can
pretty much guarantee against a number of errors like memory leaks and
- plumbing code. it just plain sucks to have to call memset, malloc
and free everywhere. #IFDEF may be damn useful but for me is ugly as
- complexity/productivity. add all the plumbing code in; the need to
track and free all your resources; macros that obfuscate recursive &
often cyclic function calls to n levels; the need to dick with your
defines both in the code and in the compiler, and the flag mess that
ensues when you are linking against every man and his dll and you end
up with a language great for low-level tweaking of the cpu instruction
set and a morass once it scales that eats huge amounts of programmer
time dicking with the maintenance of flags, variables and
linker/compiler bleats. this inevitibly sucks large amounts of time
away from higher-level functional work, especially during integration
with other people's code. I'd posit it as a given that we are going to
have to write more higher-level functional code than for any other
project ever attempted. To code the capabilities and faculties of
smart human is going to be a ridiculously huge endeavour. And once our
boy is smart enough he'll be rewriting himself bigger and bigger while
rewriting our code smaller and smaller. we just need to write
something big enough so that he has the capability to do so.
C++: the current language of choice for all large critical systems
worldwide. The OSes are written in C, but the apps are in C++. When
your plane lands, it's C++; when the latest NASA space-gadget bleeps,
it's C++. The vast majority of apps that run global infrastructure are
- first things first; every VM and interpreter of note for the
bytecode/interpreted languages is written in C++. A Java programmer
bitching about C++ is like a hand bitching about it's forearm. If you
want to hack your own special JIT or JVM, you'll need to be doing it
- Most of the RTOS vendors provide C++ APIs; so real-time application
development is available (for a cost)
- There's a larger body of support libraries available than for C when
it comes to higher-level functions; the STL is a great example
- as noted in one of the posts above, the toolset is awful in
comparison. g++ is gcc's ugly cousin. linker errors, especially with
STL code, are even more convoluted than C.
- complexity/productivity. template soup is a great example. and yes,
it still has pointers and memory housekeeping requirements, and yes,
any plumbing work that is programming-language specific is a negative.
Yes, some programmers thrive in this enviroment; however it is
defnitely not competing when it comes to the RAD qualities of say,
Perl or (gasp)VB.
- Microsoft are dumping C++ like a brazilian baby. For all their
faults, MS are a cluey bunch, especially when it comes to developers.
They've got to have seen something plenty nasty in the bathwater to
eat the cash-outlay gobstopper that is C#/.NET
Java: The contender to replace C++ pretty much; the guys behind the
language came out and said that they created Java to put the kiss of
death to Bjarne's creation. This puppy is running some crucial
high-load apps now, especially in finance. Also becoming the app layer
of choice on mobiles through I doubt that's relevant here.
- a memory managed language; less programmer time spent playing
nursemaid to an incomplete toolchain.
- APIs/Libraries/Tools. The core API is simply enormous; if you want
to do something, think of a class name that fits, and it'll probably
be in the VM already. What isn't in their yet is probably either in
the JSR's, sourceforge or IBM. Ant and JUnit(stack, incl things like
HTTPUnit & JCoverage) are truly revolutionary in the tool space. They
make makefiles and test stubs look archaic.
- developers. every tertiary institution on the planet is pumping them
out like sperm. we can debate their veracity, but the simple fact is
most coders (of _any_ langauge) couldn't give a rats' about coding an
AGI so having a deeper resource pool has got to help
- reflection. run-time introspection, querying the classloader etc.
gives more flexibilty than most strong/static typed languages
- remoting. RMI/EJB have their issues, but you have a distributed
systems stack in the core API. CORBA for C/C++ is an inferior
- price. it's all pretty much free as in beer, and free as in open
source otherwise, apart from the spec. this _does_ matter; thirty
C/C++ VxWorks/Metrowerks/ADS developer licenses would sting a pretty
- slowness. Now, this is historically overblown, especially in
relation to the original GUI (remember applets? anyone?) and I/O
impementations which have either been superseded or obseleted. Having
had a look at some of the Sun source code, their C/C++ programmers are
kickass (think Solaris). They've spent years refactoring every
bottleneck and apples-for-apples underperformer in comparison to STL
C++ until the difference is often negligible (check their marketing
'fact'oids). And for performance over a longer run, the application
servers with thier hacked JIT's and pre-loaded code means that Java
gets quicker the longer you run it (discounting any leaks, which are,
sadly, still present, though much reducied in comparision to early
JDKs). Another thing is that slowness seems to pretty much be a
non-issue where AGI development is concerned; by the time we finish
hacking at the thing the hardware and tools will be generations
better. You either need real-time; or you let Moore's law do your work
for you. My Java apps from 1998 fly on newer RAM-stacked hardware.
- strong+static typing. my feeling is that writing on-the-fly runtime
customizable code is going to be needed to replicate what a brain can
do. Reflection helps but isn't enough; Java is a little too
monolithically structured when compared to something like Lisp; the
code is very homogenous, and doesn't seem to have the agility to adapt
well. I think this is somewhat intended to stop migrating VB
developers from deciding they now want to be Perl programmers but it
doesn't aid in dexterity.
you can pretty much replicate everything said for Java here as it's a
flat ripoff; that's why I think Sun had no qualms ripping off ASP and
calling it JSP.
positives: they've learned their lessons from Java's mistakes; most
things are less broken in the IL and the CLR. It's early days though
and some of the apps I've seen behave atrociously.
negatives: price; no option for CLR hacking. And it's got to be said,
MS are evil bastards; trying being a chair in Steve Ballmer's office,
let alone Netscape, Sun or Real.
OK I'll state my bias here; I've clearly coded in most of the others
previously mentioned but Perl took my commercial programming virginity
- and no, not doing CGI. Perl6/Parrot, while unfinished, seem to me to
be pretty damn compelling. Once they have Parrot out with plugins for
Lisp/Haskell/Java etc they'll have a pretty damn decent alternative to
.NET. and having regex support within the syntax is just plain right.
- libraries. CPAN is huge; there's a module for most everything you
can find in the Java API and plenty else besides
- speed. competes tidily with C++, especially in batch processing.
- typing. weak+dynamic. Perl doesn't care what it is or where it came
from or what you're trying to do with it. 'use strict' can tighten the
belt if needed for debugging. the auto/dynaloader magick allows
run-time composition and execution of completely new
functions/classes. The things the monks and their kin can do with this
language is spectacular in a very scary way
- oo. people knock their ISA implementation as a bolt-on. has always
worked fine for me though. but it's definitely not as structured as
- complexity. weak+dynamic gives bad programmers license to kill. some
perl code is unmaintainable. some wizards also take perverse pleasure
in writing incredibly obfuscated code, unmatched outside of the
functional languages I expect
- toolset. perl is, well, fractured. it's a bit all over the place.
you can get most anything to work, but just about everything is
idiosyncratic as hell. Perl6/Parrot should put some kind of nail in
this, but you never know with these crazy Perl nuts
I have no sodding idea about Lisp apart from doing some reading
recently and downloading a common Lisp compiler. That said, a good
portion of the brightest minds in programming reserve a special status
positives: functional/macro language right? good for self-evolving code
negatives: Lisp already failed as the AI coding language of choice.
Quibble all you like but it's 0 for 1, and AI Winter and the decline
of Lisp seem interwined. Common Lisp doesn't even come close to
matching the breadth of the bytecode-based APIs.
Candidates dismissed for discussion, and why:
(these langauges seemed to me to have no standout qualities that
belied their shortcomings; and basically they just don't compete in
the same league as the heavyweights)
Pascal/Delphi etc: subsets of C/C++
Python/PHP/Ruby: subsets of Perl/Java, with piss all supporting
libraries for non-web applications in comparison
Haskell or functional-language-of-choice: Useful past the bootstrap
level, and mixed in via say Parrot could be useful; but underweight
for workhorse work in terms of developer-space footprint
ADA/Fortran archaic-failed-language-of-choice: nothing better than Lisp.
Assembler/Machine language: all great, until you leave x86 to go to
Cell chips; then you're stuffed
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:55 MDT