= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on A Request for Open Problems - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (104)
Using simple languages is the conventional approach. However, simple languages typically result in more complex programs. The game of life is very simple - yet try writing a program in it. If you are trying to minimise the size of an emulator of other languages, then highly simple languages don't seem to fit the bill.
Why would one want a decent formulation of Occam's razor? To help solve the problem of the priors.
I agree. We seem to have the same goal, so my first advice stands, not my second.
I am currently trying to develop a language that is both simple and expressive, and making some progress. The overall design is finished, and I am now down to what instructions it should have. It is a general bi-graph, but with a sequential program structure, and no separation of program and data.
It is somewhat different from what you want, as I also need something that have measurable use of time and memory, and is provable able to run fast.
Could I have a link, or maybe some more information about this language? It's something I'm very interested in (merging expressiveness and guarantees about resource usage).