|
|
|
|
|
by airesQ
3485 days ago
|
|
From the 10mins I spend looking at it: - It seems some kind of language/computation-model. Loosely based on a "everything is an actor" model. - It did look goodish. I tried following the Fibonacci example, which sort of made sense (I got the impression that recursion is handled by creating new nodes/zells). The discussion chapter also seemed interesting. - It has that abstruse academic feel, where sometimes it is hard to assess whether the problem is my ignorance, or just vagueness of the publication. - Motivation sections usually have an exaggerated tone to them (i.e. this will totally change everything), but this one, and the article above, are a bit over the top. - There are also some over-the-top statements sprinkled throughout the thesis (e.g. "a model of virtual objects which exist independent of any hardware"). |
|
- thanks =)
- I had that same feeling while writing it, constantly balancing my own ignorance with an acceptable level of vagueness
- call me the over-the-top guy. But the way I see, your vision has to be grand, if not megalomaniac if you want the essence to survive the collision with reality
- seamlessly migrating networked objects are one of the lesser over-the-top ideas though