From: Gary Miller (garymiller@starband.net)
Date: Sat Jan 25 2003 - 15:09:39 MST
Ben Goertzal said:
>> Because if you know you're going to use the supercompiler to
transform
>> your code into efficient code, you can write MUCH SIMPLER CODE with a
>> focus on maintainability and easy debuggability, rather than thinking
>> about efficiency AT ALL.
The most important determining factor in most programs speed is
selection of the proper algorithm.
For instance for a small trivial sort the shell sort algorithm is fine
but
when you have thousands or tens of thousands of items to sort the
QuickSort
algoritm is much faster.
Does the SuperCompiler substitute in a different algorithm if the one we
Code is nonoptimal? I'd be surprised if it was that sophisticated.
In order for it to do this it would have to know specifics about the
algorithm and the data being used by the program which is currently not
Information known by the program. For instance a binary search is much
faster than a sequential search if the data in the list is already
sorted.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sl4@sl4.org [mailto:owner-sl4@sl4.org] On Behalf Of Ben
Goertzel
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 3:22 PM
To: sl4@sl4.org
Subject: RE: Coding from Scratch: Jaron Lanier
> Ben,
>
> Supercompilation is very interesting, but I don't see how it would
> solve even one, single bug. The bugs would still be there, they would
> just execute faster.
Because if you know you're going to use the supercompiler to transform
your code into efficient code, you can write MUCH SIMPLER CODE with a
focus on maintainability and easy debuggability, rather than thinking
about efficiency AT ALL.
We don't code for debuggability now, but with a supercompiler we could
do so.
I didn't say this before, but it's also true that the supercompiler
could be used as a powerful debugger...
-- Ben
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT