[#10209] Market for XML Web stuff — Matt Sergeant <matt@...>

I'm trying to get a handle on what the size of the market for AxKit would be

15 messages 2001/02/01

[#10238] RFC: RubyVM (long) — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>

Hi,

20 messages 2001/02/01
[#10364] Re: RFC: RubyVM (long) — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2001/02/05

[#10708] Suggestion for threading model — Stephen White <spwhite@...>

I've been playing around with multi-threading. I notice that there are

11 messages 2001/02/11

[#10853] Re: RubyChangeRequest #U002: new proper name for Hash#indexes, Array#indexes — "Mike Wilson" <wmwilson01@...>

10 messages 2001/02/14

[#11037] to_s and << — "Brent Rowland" <tarod@...>

list = [1, 2.3, 'four', false]

15 messages 2001/02/18

[#11094] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

12 messages 2001/02/19

[#11131] Re: Summary: RCR #U002 - proper new name fo r indexes — "Conrad Schneiker" <schneik@...>

Robert Feldt wrote:

10 messages 2001/02/19

[#11251] Programming Ruby is now online — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

36 messages 2001/02/21

[#11469] XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig)

23 messages 2001/02/24
[#11490] Re: XML-RPC and KDE — schuerig@... (Michael Schuerig) 2001/02/24

Michael Neumann <neumann@s-direktnet.de> wrote:

[#11491] Negative Reviews for Ruby and Programming Ruby — Jim Freeze <jim@...> 2001/02/24

Hi all:

[#11633] RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

13 messages 2001/02/26

[#11652] RE: RCR: shortcut for instance variable initialization — Michael Davis <mdavis@...>

I like it!

14 messages 2001/02/27

[#11700] Starting Once Again — Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>

OK, I'm starting again with Ruby. I'm just assuming that I've

31 messages 2001/02/27
[#11712] RE: Starting Once Again — "Aaron Hinni" <aaron@...> 2001/02/27

> 2. So far I think running under TextPad will be better than running

[#11726] Re: Starting Once Again — Aleksi Niemel<zak@...> 2001/02/28

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aaron Hinni wrote:

[ruby-talk:10814] Re: Suggestion for threading model

From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2001-02-14 01:17:03 UTC
List: ruby-talk #10814
----- Original Message ----- 
From: anthony cagle <acagle@subimo.com>
To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:07 AM
Subject: [ruby-talk:10779] Re: Suggestion for threading model


> If you're referring to the CYC project, it spun out as a company, Cycorp
> which appears to still be operational (www.cyc.com).
> 

Thanks very much for that reference, Anthony...
that does indeed seem to be what I was
remembering...

Hal




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal E. Fulton [mailto:hal9000@hypermetrics.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 4:24 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:10711] Re: Suggestion for threading model
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephen White <spwhite@chariot.net.au>
> To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:12 AM
> Subject: [ruby-talk:10708] Suggestion for threading model
> 
> 
> [huge interesting snip]
> 
> Here's my (mostly useless) opinion.
> 
> In terms of modeling the universe, this might be a very
> interesting, useful approach. After all, every object in
> the real world has its own "world line" and there is no
> inherent "sequence" in accessing them.
> 
> As long as we're dreaming, I'd assign a separate
> processor to each object instance. And the instances
> wouldn't share any code among them.
> 
> The universe implements True Concurrency in possibly the
> strictest sense of the word... probably without even a
> quantized timeslice... and there is no evidence that God
> does timeslicing anyway... :)
> 
> So in a sense I like this idea (more long term than short).
> 
> However, in terms of practicality and ease of implementation,
> I think there might be huge problems.
> 
> To exaggerate a notch or three, it's rather like the idea of
> building a giant expert system with millions of rules, giving it
> a natural language interface, and slowly dumping all of human
> knowledge into it. (Things like this have been proposed
> seriously.)
> 
> To all who propose these things, I say, "Fine... go do it."
> 
> I recall an interesting 2,000,000-rule expert system proposed
> right here in Austin at MCC... but I haven't heard from it in
> so many years, I'd bet a nickel it's defunct.
> 
> Hal Fulton
> 
> 

In This Thread