I am a Go fanboy

Quote from: toast on March 25, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
IMO yes, but the benefit is tiny compared to the benefit you get from the current team's C++ experience, the advantages are not worth it

And what language(s) would that be?

Quote from: toast on March 25, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
IMO yes, but the benefit is tiny compared to the benefit you get from the current team's C++ experience, the advantages are not worth it

true

Perhaps some other language will be used for future DACS? I think that future digital companies won't be as limited as they are today and they won't be limited to the industries they are today. The more pessimistic among us probably think the world is getting worse but the way I see things going the world is getting better across the board.  :)

Quote from: toast on March 25, 2014, 02:52:24 PM
Let me put it this way, I think c++ is one of the *worst* languages ever invented for *anything* and still have no problem using it for this project. It doesn't matter that much.

QuoteC++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.
...
C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:

- infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
   that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
   of BS that it's not even funny)

- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
   you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all
   your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
   cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

Linus Torvalds

+5%

IMO yes, but the benefit is tiny compared to the benefit you get from the current team's C++ experience, the advantages are not worth it

Quote from: toast on March 25, 2014, 02:52:24 PM
Let me put it this way, I think c++ is one of the *worst* languages ever invented for *anything* and still have no problem using it for this project. It doesn't matter that much.

QuoteC++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.
...
C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:

- infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
   that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
   of BS that it's not even funny)

- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
   you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all
   your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
   cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

Linus Torvalds

I am not a programer. But isn't there an alternative (for bitshares) that is as efficient (application runs fast because code is close to the hardware) as c/c++ but better in other respects (easier to use, more elegant, more powerful)...?   

Let me put it this way, I think c++ is one of the *worst* languages ever invented for *anything* and still have no problem using it for this project. It doesn't matter that much.

QuoteC++ is a horrible language. It's made more horrible by the fact that a lot
of substandard programmers use it, to the point where it's much much
easier to generate total and utter crap with it. Quite frankly, even if
the choice of C were to do *nothing* but keep the C++ programmers out,
that in itself would be a huge reason to use C.
...
C++ leads to really really bad design choices. You invariably start using
the "nice" library features of the language like STL and Boost and other
total and utter crap, that may "help" you program, but causes:

- infinite amounts of pain when they don't work (and anybody who tells me
   that STL and especially Boost are stable and portable is just so full
   of BS that it's not even funny)

- inefficient abstracted programming models where two years down the road
   you notice that some abstraction wasn't very efficient, but now all
   your code depends on all the nice object models around it, and you
   cannot fix it without rewriting your app.

Linus Torvalds

Quote from: GodsCreation on March 24, 2014, 07:34:55 PM
c++ should be fine for it's core. Wrappers will be created eventually to support higher level languages and ease of use. I will give a go at creating .NET wrappers once we got a steady 'base DAC' but I do have to dive into the existing code a little bit more.

+5%

Quote from: tomorrow on March 24, 2014, 09:08:51 PM

Quote from: jae208 on March 24, 2014, 06:16:28 PM
Anyone on here know if the Wolfram Language can be used to create future DACS? Would it be faster than C++?


https://www.wolfram.com/language/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P9HqHVPeik&list=UUJekgf6k62CQHdENWf2NgAQ

Mathematica is for symbolic reasoning. I don't expect this Wolfram language far from that.

They advertise that it is one of the best languages for the "internet of things" which hasn't even matured yet. That alone may suggest that there is a lot of growth potential in my opinion.

Quote from: jae208 on March 24, 2014, 06:16:28 PM
Anyone on here know if the Wolfram Language can be used to create future DACS? Would it be faster than C++?


https://www.wolfram.com/language/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P9HqHVPeik&list=UUJekgf6k62CQHdENWf2NgAQ

Mathematica is for symbolic reasoning. I don't expect this Wolfram language far from that.

c++ should be fine for it's core. Wrappers will be created eventually to support higher level languages and ease of use. I will give a go at creating .NET wrappers once we got a steady 'base DAC' but I do have to dive into the existing code a little bit more.

If you watch Wolfram's demonstration video, it looks like one could spend a long, long time mastering what is in there. It looks massive.

Quote from: toast on March 24, 2014, 06:50:22 PM
You're still thinking of it like AI, but a DAC is just an agreement with a ledger. We are optimizing for a totally different set of constraints.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I wasn't really thinking of a DAC as AI, at least not with the current technology available. I do think that once the enabling factors are in place and our computers "understand" language we will have DACS that may display what may seem as AI.

I guess what I am really wondering is whether or not C++ is the best language to create DACS in. I mean would we be able to create more sophisticated DACS in something other than C++?

You're still thinking of it like AI, but a DAC is just an agreement with a ledger. We are optimizing for a totally different set of constraints.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Wouldn't something like the Wolfram Language be the future though?
It seems like you can do a lot more with this language and at a faster rate they say on their website that their language is the highest level language in existence, any thoughts?

http://www.wolfram.com/programming-cloud/

Also, I believe that Siri(Iphone) derives some of her knowledge if not all from the Wolfram Alpha knowledge engine via natural language which is also part of this programming language.