Autocoding project proposal.

[Timothy Rue]

On 25-Jan-02 18:24:55 Huaiyu Zhu <huaiyu at gauss.almadan.ibm.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:30:26 GMT, Timothy Rue <threeseas at earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/vic-contents.html

>Ah, here's the link.  Well, I can see you do have thought a lot about these.
>But believe me, you have truckloads of details to be worked out before
>others will join you.

>As you do it, you'll find that the set of commands you initially chose might
>shift away from the center of attention, and more important or intriguing
>features might pop up.  You might find that some things you hand-waved
>through emerge as almost inpenetrable hudles, and some things you hold dear
>become jokingly trivial.

>If I were at your position, I would just chooes the simplest example
>imaginable that demonstrates the main feature of the design, and actually
>code it up to see how it works.  You'll be amazed at how much details you
>didn't see the first round.  Then you can trim down all the non-essential
>details, and try to find an even simpler example.  After a few rounds you
>would have a starting point that others might be interested in.  And if it
>is a solid starting point, it will have a long life ahead.

>Huaiyu

Because of the nature of the project, it's not something that will evolve
off the target that is identified. Any changes will only be to better
integrate the commands in order to handle any exceptions that are found to
not work.

Understand, it's not an idea, it's not patentable. It's an identification
of the nine these we do in anything we do, and then defined in terms of
computer functionality to the best possible versatility to be had on a
given system. There are some inherent constraint within the hardware of
computers that cannot be avoided.

It is a core configuration of functionality to be accessable to the
typical computer end user. And done so in a manner that allows those who
use it to automate things already existing, in a dynamic manner.

The general descripting of the nine actions is not going to change. and
the logic of how the functionality is configured and carried out to it's
logical conclusion is what it is.

I suppose this is what makes it so different and in turn, hard to
understand by the typical programmer mindset.

There is the problem of communicating it to others. But it's an unusual
problem. Non-programmers can grasp the nine actions far easier then the
programmer mind set, yet the programmer mindset tends to preceive it in
terms of the programming languages that most currently is on their minds.

There seems to be some problems along the lines of deprogramming. As old
style auto manufacture employees were harder and more expensive to retrain
than train totally new workers.

Another example that is relative to computer is the conversion of using
Roman Numerals to the hindu-arabic decimal system. Of which the hardest
part to grasp was the symbol '0' meaning nothing but having a value. It
seemed so contridictary and silly to have such a symbol by those who were
long skilled in using the roman numerals. I think it took something like
300 years or so before the general population was using the decimal
system, mostly it was business that caused the decimal system to be
adopted due to the need to be able to better deal with inventories and
other numerical informaation in business like counting money.

But without the symbol of nothing as a place holder, we wouldn't have
computers, seriously.

And just as roman numerals greatly limited the advancement of mathmatics,
so does the current methodologies of programming limit the advancement of
software engineering.

The fundamently logic is simple: Programming is the act of automating
complexity that is made up of simpler things. The software industry has
been able to automate most any other field, from mathmatics in science and
space exploration to robotics for manufacturing, even the field of human
balance and movement (segway). But for some odd reason it can't seem to
automate itself even in the most fundamental basic ways of being available
in a general manner.

One of the things needed in a computer environment is the three primary
user interfaces of the command line, the graphical user interface and the
side door port to applications and other functionality. The port that
allows the user to communicate to the application or functionality in the
scriptable vocabulary of the given functionality/application.

where the VIC comes in is in handeling the dictionaries of the various
applications/functionality and acting as a central control point that can
spawn off instances of itself in order to handel greater levels of
complexity in a parrallel manner.

Here is an example of using the VIC in voice/speech controlled...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=13506.301T771T10734137%40mindspring.com

perhaps this is the sort of example people are looking for.


Still there seems to be a general problem in communicating the VIC
to others.



---
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
   *~ ~ ~      Advancing How we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue      What's *DONE* in all we do?  *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Email @ mailto:timrue at mindspring.com      >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/  ^<--------<----9----<--------<