A World Run with Code • Hacker News Board

Re: A World Run with Code

#11

Post by jwr » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

I find Stephen Wolfram to be a an interesting person. On one hand, he is undeniably exceptional and created an impressive computational system. On the other hand, the "Wolfram language" is really a pretty poor design as far as programming languages go, and would not even be noticed if it wasn't for the giant standard library that gets shipped with it, called Mathematica. I use the "Wolfram language" because I have to, not because I want to.

In other words, if I could easily use the Mathematica library from Clojure, I wouldn't give the Wolfram Language a second glance. I can't think of even a single language aspect that would tempt me to use the Wolfram Language [context: I've been a Mathematica user since 1993] over Clojure. I have (much) better data structures, a consistent library for dealing with them, transducers, core.async, good support for parallel computation, pattern matching through core.match, and finally a decent programming interface with a REPL, which I can use from an editor that does paren-matching for me (ever tried to debug a complex Mathematica expression with mismatched parens/brackets/braces?).

This is why the man is a contradiction: his thoughts are undeniably interesting, but his focus and anchoring in the "Wolfram Language" is jarring.

Re: A World Run with Code

#12

Post by fractalf » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10

furyofantares wrote: post #5

As much as I wish Wolfram would dial back the egocentric tone in places, this is overall an excellent read

I wish he'd cite sources rather than implying by omission that everything is his idea. There's a reason A New Kind of Science was self-published.

Bought the book some years ago, but never really got through it. Keeping it handy though in case I need to knock out a burglar. Thing is massive, shipping was half the cost ;)

Re: A World Run with Code

#13

Post by juskrey » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

jwr wrote: post #11

I find Stephen Wolfram to be a an interesting person. On one hand, he is undeniably exceptional and created an impressive computational system. On the other hand, the "Wolfram language" is really a pretty poor design as far as programming languages go, and would not even be noticed if it wasn't for the giant standard library that gets shipped with it, called Mathematica. I use the "Wolfram language" because I have to…

I have interacted much with both Mathematica and Clojure, and the only thing I wish Mathematica had is a coder-oriented editor, like, for example, Cursive in Clojure world. It would become a truly powerful thing. On the quirks of Wolfram language - I personally can live with them, it is good enough considering the requirement to keep Mathematica's historical and huge lib compatibility. However current Mathematica's approach to notebook editing is just a horrible PowerPoint-like mutation.. at least for a coder like myself. I'd even love to help making it better if I had a chance to.

Re: A World Run with Code

#14

Post by cytzol » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

jwr wrote: post #11

I find Stephen Wolfram to be a an interesting person. On one hand, he is undeniably exceptional and created an impressive computational system. On the other hand, the "Wolfram language" is really a pretty poor design as far as programming languages go, and would not even be noticed if it wasn't for the giant standard library that gets shipped with it, called Mathematica. I use the "Wolfram language" because I have to…

> On the other hand, the "Wolfram language" is really a pretty poor design as far as programming languages go, and would not even be noticed if it wasn't for the giant standard library that gets shipped with it, called Mathematica.

In the official documentation (as well as his blog posts), the term “Wolfram Language” is used to refer to the combination of the two: both the syntax and the huge standard library, because you almost always encounter one using the other. This seems pretty common to me — I’ve said things like “I used the Ruby language” when I’m also using its built-in modules.

I agree with you in saying that the language part of the Language is nothing particularly special, though.

Re: A World Run with Code

#15

Post by daenz » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

>Right now, most of what the computers in the world do is to execute tasks we basically initiate. But increasingly our world is going to involve computers autonomously interacting with each other, according to computational contracts. Once something happens in the world—some computational fact is established—we’ll quickly see cascades of computational contracts executing. And there’ll be all sorts of complicated intrinsic randomness in the interactions of different computational acts.

I don't think it takes a math genius to see how this is a bad idea. In the same way that trading algorithms can get into a feedback loop that crash markets, these "computational contracts" can cause cascading failures that hurt society as a whole. This is why human intelligence is so critical in running society: it has the ability to question whether its "programming" is correct and having the intended effects, and adjust accordingly. Computational contracts have no such introspection, by definition. They resolve because the rules are satisfied, for better or worse.

And all of that isn't even considering the attack surface area for malicious actors to target.

Re: A World Run with Code

#16

Post by memory_grep » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

> And, yes, there’s only basically one full computational language that exists in the world today—and it’s the one I’ve spent the past three decades building—the Wolfram Language.

:/

Re: A World Run with Code

#17

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

vertline3 wrote: post #8

The idea of small rules leading to large patterns is not something Wolfram invented, but he seems to think he did. I think Conway's game of life predates it, as does Mandelbrot, then there is the Durer pentagon. Maybe there is a something I am missing though?

From what I have heard, what you're missing is Wolfram's ego. That's why he magnifies the importance of what he has done.

Re: A World Run with Code

#18

Post by OneWordSoln » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10

furyofantares wrote: post #5

As much as I wish Wolfram would dial back the egocentric tone in places, this is overall an excellent read

I wish he'd cite sources rather than implying by omission that everything is his idea. There's a reason A New Kind of Science was self-published.

And the same reason I returned it to Barnes & Noble within two days.

Re: A World Run with Code

#19

Post by OneWordSoln » Fri, May 03, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #17

vertline3 wrote: post #8

The idea of small rules leading to large patterns is not something Wolfram invented, but he seems to think he did. I think Conway's game of life predates it, as does Mandelbrot, then there is the Durer pentagon. Maybe there is a something I am missing though?

From what I have heard, what you're missing is Wolfram's ego. That's why he magnifies the importance of what he has done.

I mean, Mathematica is a truly great, great piece of software, but his "New Kind of Science" was both utterly worthless and a fantastic treatise on how a person's grandiose religion of self leads to utter delusion.

Re: A World Run with Code

#20

Post by raz32dust » Fri, May 03, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

daenz wrote: post #15

>Right now, most of what the computers in the world do is to execute tasks we basically initiate. But increasingly our world is going to involve computers autonomously interacting with each other, according to computational contracts. Once something happens in the world—some computational fact is established—we’ll quickly see cascades of computational contracts executing. And there’ll be all sorts of complicated intr…

In the same vein, "Human intelligence" led to the 2008 crash. Human's aren't infallible either. My problem with this argument is that there is no logical basis for how exactly human intelligence is different. Computers aren't there yet in most domains, but there is no evidence to say they can't get there. How soon is anybody's guess right now.

While AGI might be far off, I can certainly imagine computers running larger and larger sub-worlds. e.g, if all cars were self-driving, I am reasonably sure we can design traffic to be more efficient with all cars coordinating with each other instead of humans trying to do so.