|
From: | Marcus G. Daniels |
Subject: | Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements |
Date: | Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:11:59 -0700 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) |
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
If we imagine that X, Y and Z agents are processes that listen, and that they each have a lexicon that happens to contain passTheSalt with a binding to -abc:, -def:, -ghi:, respectively, it's clear how this has to work, yes? Of course agents in any given model won't necessarily need to accumulate lots of subjective state, so it's not clear to me this is a common case a toolkit must addressI don't want that detail in my _model_. I want another agent to be able to speak "passTheSalt" or whatever and have it translated to: [X abc: arg1];
If, however, what's being studied is, say, indigenous populations and how trade emerges, then those models _should_ look very different from typical computer programs.
Of course!Here's my point: If you have a long process of identifying requirements without triaging them as to how best to make them integrated and useful (by prototyping real code as you go), and without noticing the ones that are computationally expensive (in watts), you find yourself and the end of this process with a big dumb design document that no-one will ever want to touch. Conversely, it isn't good to force programming formalisms on concepts unless they fit, but it's fine when they do because an instance of an appropriate implemented formalism is something that is one step close to something working.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |