[p2p-research] defining a (programming) language/annotation system ?

Mon Jul 5 16:06:07 CEST 2010

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson
> <dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Sam !
> > Can we create a form of representation/annotation which can also be used
> as
> > a programming language ?
>
>
> annotation cannot be used as a programming language. However, a
> programming language could possibly use annotations applied, depending
> on how the system is architected.
>

Thanks Sam.
I m in a learning process, and you are all helping me in it.
I may be making up my own definitions, and re-inventing what already may
exist,
so I ll try to give better terms to explain what I currently visualize in
relation to a p2p system for everyone to become their own economist :)

http://cashwiki.org/en/A_Financial_Programming_Language

>
> > Hence would there be an existing programming language that would be most
> > suitable to express the objects and processes used ?
>
> Any "Turing Complete" programming language could work to do the basic
> processes that make up computation. It is best to create an abstract
> of "objects and processes" which can then be implemented in any
> existing or future programming language.
>

When I think about it I imagine it as the "computation" to be the "users"
themselves.

I also imagine that it is emergent as the "users" self program the system,
as they code in transactions and architectures for transactions, and choose
to network or not such systems ( or create conditions for access to
networked architectures and interdependent transaction systems )

*An operating system, not for a computer, but for interdependent systems of
users.*

Various layers :

A network of computers using computer computation needed for the storing and
handling of the data ( the coded architectures, the set transactions, the
accredited transactions, the added metadata, etc ... )  making it
visible/accessible to all users.

It is only in addition to this that other tools can be used,
tools which themselves can be represented ( annotated ? ) in a certain way.

Tools that can offer extensions then eventually simulate/compute by building
on available data, either as a "engine" used by users ( for example a p2p
clearing tool such as ripple ? or a f2f tool ? ) , either itself as a "user"
of the system ( agent based computing as virtual users ? ).

Calculations for all transactions ( computing ), clearing, etc could be done
in a distributed way,
but would only be subtools.

----

Hence the easiest way of looking at it, could be to imagine the
creation of*a board game
*,
which facilitates users to make choices for the requests and offers they are
willing to make, and a variety of architectures they can use /
suggest, by *"playing"
with more granular sets and commands ?*

> > Can we create a universal language
>
> I was just thinking to myself yesterday that it is often a bad idea to
> use the word "universal" in relation to languages. Because, in this
> context, nothing can ever truly be "universal". There will always be
> either cases you are not aware of, and/or languages that are not aware
> of your "universality" effort. Thus, you'll always fall short of truly
> being "universal". Therefore, using the word "universal" is inaccurate
> and could be bad for present and future participant understanding of
> the real nature of the system. It could create expectations which are
> actually impossible.
>

"integral"  ? "Panarchic" ?

> >which can enable users to participate in,
> > or even create any kind of architecture, building from a set of
> relations,
> > objects, processes... and architectures of processes ( engines ? )
>
> The funny thing is that what you describe above has already been done.
> people *have* made this possible with basically any programming
> language. There's a barrier to entry to those who are not programmers,
> and even to programmers who do not have the time bandwidth to address
> the problem properly.
>

Yes. I have been exploring existing programming languages, and various
programming "paradigms", and was asking myself where to start ? What
language would be more appropriate :)

>
> > I m curious - What programming language(s) do you intend to use when
> > creating an accounting toolkit ?
>
> We started to implement in erlang. Although our initial creation will
> likely be simple enough to be recreated in other languages.
>

I considered Erlang too.
Also "smalltalk" ( as object oriented - it also seems to be used a lot in
finance ? )

Then I thought, perhaps its easier to use a language which offers a
graphical interface such as "processing"

I was also exploring multi-paradigm languages, such as "Oz"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oz_(programming_language)

> > Does it correspond to the type of
> > languages that could be used to define what I tried to express in this
> last
> > message ?
>
> The real mission is not to create one toolkit, or one programming
> language, or one system, but convince as many participants as possible
> to either implement a way for their systems to talk to other systems,
> or get them to adopt a system that is designed for interoperability.
> We have thousands of systems, but few people who understand that they
> need to give the rest of the world some simple way to talk with their
> system. It can be *any* standard, so long as it is decipherable and
> callable outside of the local program it is deployed in. This would
> then create an ecology that would allow *many* systems to be deployed,
> *many* metaprogramming languages, etc.

:)

> The limit would then only be
> the limit of the physical resources of servers and machines to serve
> data. Many information ecologies have already transitioned towards
> this type of ecology (they all usually implement some form of API,
> etc).
>
> The other major mission that I see, also not creating a toolkit, but
> rather making it easier for people to *be* participants. For example,
> automating participation through barcode, RFID tracking, GPS tracking
> etc
>

yes !  :)

>
> The above 2 combined are the ecology needed, I believe, for what you
> describe.
>
> (Dante, I removed the 2 email lists you had CC'ed as I am not
> subscribed to them and my message is definitely be blocked from being
> sent to them. I include p2presearch list which may be interested in
> this discussion, as well as Michel, Paul and Richard)
>

Thanks Sam ! Hi all people on p2prlist , Paul and Richard !

>
>
> > Thanks !
>
> --
> --
> Sam Rose
> Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://forwardfound.org
> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> http://localfoodsystems.org
> http://notanemployee.net
> http://communitywiki.org
> http://p2pfoundation.net
>
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100705/a42da69d/attachment.html>