RE: Swarm futures

[Christopher J. Mackie]

Glen Ropella writes:

>Or perhaps we could pick a place where very little work has been done
so far
>like developing a continually evolving OO database whose objects and
clusters 
>of objects periodically migrate into the processor for various reasons
and 
>marshal themselves to communicate or to travel.

I like this idea a lot: the connection between ABMs and OO databases
needs to be made much easier, and a truly integrated ABM/OODB framework
could be an incredibly powerful, flexible modeling asset--truly a 'next
generation' tool, as opposed to a better, this-generation mousetrap.

>The bottom-line, here, is that the SDGs implementation of Swarm is
difficult to 
>use.  It makes great strides in bridging the modeler/ programmer gap;
but, in 
>doing so, burrowed itself in deep enough to make evolving the tool
difficult.  
>On the other hand, many other packages, by adopting simplifying
assumptions, 
>are easier to use, but are too limiting to be used for large-scale,
long-lived 
>projects, which makes them difficult to evolve, as well.

Amen--to the specific point and to the need to 'back out' of the present
development cycle and come at the problem afresh.  

I would definitely show up and attempt to help, were we to have this
conversation at SwarmFest.  

--Chris

========================
Christopher J. Mackie
Princeton University
address@hidden



                  ==================================
   Swarm-Support is for discussion of the technical details of the day
   to day usage of Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp.
   [un]subscribing), please send a message to <address@hidden>
   with "help" in the body of the message.