As an amateur, I find this stuff fascinating. My biggest fear is that I might miss an episode.
As far as the competing approaches go, my gut feeling is that if we don't see the convergence, it is simply too early in the game. Somehow, mathematical notations seem to have defeating the third law of physics (the one about entropy, in case I got that wrong) and only pragmatism gets in the way. Which Eric will recognise as being interference by no-so-little green men with bug-eyes stopping us from conquering the universe. Now, let me study the next chapter... I hope all these gems will one day be collected in an anthology titled "How Humanity Escaped Pragmatism and Conquered, then Wiped Out, the Entire Universe". Lucio. On Thursday, 4 October 2018 11:25:13 UTC+2, Eric Raymond wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 4:26:44 AM UTC-4, Peter Waller wrote: >> >> My approach is a bit different, and works by printing the Python AST in >> Go. There is an overlap in our philosophy of 'produce standalone code' and >> 'help a human do the translation into idiomatic Go'. However, mine was a >> Saturday morning project which was never used in anger, so it is naturally >> quite incomplete. >> >>> >>> > Oh, good. We now have direct competition between a swarm-rule approach > and a deep-reasoning approach. It will be very interesting to see which > does better in the long run. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
