1. Software writing is not affected by Moore's law, only hardware.
2. Programming is an abstract art that has a foundation of sand.
3. Bug-free software is impossible
4. A true 'Lego'-like software that is built with different plugin modules is utopian at best.(GEX anyone?)
5. Code is easier to write than read, so code is graded by readability
6.Programmers must think as a philosopher than an engineer or architect as they handle abstract than physical.
7.Never think you are making a BIG project
8.Coding methologies are theoritical, not practical
9. Programming language must be a great guesser, not a perfect decoder(Very strict:1 bug will crash a program).
10.We must throw out our concept of a 'file' and memory for software to evolve.
Questions pertaining to GML:
1.Should GML be structured to be more readable to the normal human being?
2.Is transcedent(dynamic) software possible with GML?
3.Should software writing change direction, and how?
4. Should computers really be great guessers than perfect decoders?
Now how would that work?
Well, neural networking.
Say there is a pattern of colors. Because the hues and stuff may differ differently than the one stored in code:
pat=pattern_read_script();//pattern could be a string return pattern_compare_script(pat); //returns 1-10(1 for being totally different to 10 for a match)pattern_read_script()
var pat_str; for (i=0;i<=pattern_width;i+=accuracy) pat_string+=pattern_get_pixelcolor(pattern_x+i,pattern_y); //pseudo GML code, not to be taken seriously return pat_string;How would pattern_get_pixelcolor() work? Well it basicalky gets the pixel color, converts it to a 1 digit character and returns it.
The real problem is the pattern_compare_script(). It has an original pattern stored and compares the new pattern with that. But how does it grade based on probability, not hard rules?
Edited by gmx0, 23 January 2010 - 11:24 PM.