Apple Corp. sucks as a member of society. As one of the wealthiest and most successful companies on earth they continue to play dirty by abusing the patent system for their advantage. Most of the patents they are "protecting" are describing pretty obvious ideas that any group of good engineers working on this class of devices would bump into, and this behavior does not benefit society in any way. They are clearly protecting a virtual monopoly on tablets by fighting with patents rather than focusing on out innovating the competition. I hope their will one day be real competition in this space.
Perhaps you could make comments part of the ast decoration. Hover over a function call and the IDE can popup a display showing comments for that function. The popup could be easily switched back and forth between comments, the parameter list, or possibly other info about the function. The comments could be plain-text, rendered HTML, or even crazier stuff like audio/video recordings for particularly important comments.
People could choose whether they wanted comments rendered inline with code like usual or displayed elsewhere.
You're right, and in Overtone we haven't really tried to mirror SCLang at all. The DSP core of scsynth is a great piece of software with many years of testing, debugging, and extension, so it's wonderful that we can leverage this externally by just sending OSC. Of course we want to pull in any good ideas we find from the sc class library or any other music system, but generally we have been working on creating an expressive synthesis language that clearly communicates what is being produced. In SCLang there are many syntactic tricks and shortcuts which allow you to create very terse definitions, but they are often to the detriment of readability. With Clojure's lazy sequences we can easily model many interesting types of generative musical structures, and with easy access to the JVM ecosystem of libraries we can now control our musical processes with external tools or devices, visualize them with nice graphics, auralize external phenomena (e.g. people have hooked into automated build/test systems), etc., far easier than in SClang.
Actually, one of the initial motivations for creating Overtone was to experiment with automating "feel". I was getting into electronic music, and it seemed to me that many of the painful aspects of EQing and adjusting instruments and timing so they don't interfere with each other could be automated. We haven't really gotten to this point yet, but I tend to believe that this is yet another area in life where people will argue forever that software will never compete with humans, up until the point where many of the top tracks are being generated by software. It also opens the door to all kinds of interesting things, like live composition of multiple instruments, or meta-composing, where you modify parameters along axis like tension, emotion, drive, and vibe, rather than figuring out how to modulate to the next key. For now I agree with you though, most of what I create in Overtone still has a robotic feel. Hopefully that won't be the case for long. We'd love to have more musicians joining the discussion though, so if you have ideas join the mailing list.
It's not necessarily that SC is complicated, but it is a custom language that has to be learned to use a single application. Also, many musical ideas and projects extend beyond what sclang can do, or you want to use external libs, etc. By using Clojure you get all of the power of sclang and more, because you also get lisp macros, while also getting access to the whole java ecosystem of libs. We've got a gui library for Overtone in the works, and it will be a good example of this in action.
He has to turn comments off on Daring Fireball or else he would be called out as an Apple fanboy/lobbyist after posts like this. Plenty of companies are willing to compete by creating better products rather than taking their competition to court. The iPhone is getting pushed aside by Android and they are playing dirty to stop it. Unless you can point to some novel technology that Apple should control because it was truly new and different, then Android should be able to compete. Just calling it "competitive" rather than offense and defense is a political tactic that tries to make Google look just as bad as the other guys, or conversely make Apple look just as good as the others. This is not a valid comparison. Combative patent lawsuits are not a requirement for successful businesses. There is a major difference between companies that choose to be litigious to stifle competition rather than focus on creating better products at a cheaper price. Buying a patent portfolio in order to stifle innovation rather than to enable you to create new or better products goes against the purpose of the patent system as it is described in the constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
They should have pooled these billions to create a massive patent reform campaign. It probably would have been cheaper and more effective in the long run.
Just a point: John Gruber has never allowed comments on Daring Fireball. This is not a new policy nor something he chooses on a per-post basis.
To me, Gruber is being consistent here: he doesn't like software patents (see his commentary on Lodsys and other NPEs), but the fact is that they exist and the way they're used now is as he describes. Google is being disingenuous about Android and patents; Google's lawyer lied about the Novell patents and the lie has been called out by Microsoft. Google may have good reason to have not wanted to go into a co-purchase agreement of the Novell patents (as Gruber outlines in this post), but to complain of unfairness now that you lost a bidding war? That's childish.
Google would actually have a moral high ground if they hadn't even bid for the Novell patents. Not bidding for them would have been a remarkably stupid move given the current patent/legal landscape, even though it meant that Google gave up the moral high ground.
Patents in the U.S. are badly broken, and I despair that software patents were ever granted in the first place. One of the things that I suspect that most people who oppose software patents forget, though, is that even if software patents were taken off the table tomorrow, the existing patents wouldn't go away. The government wouldn't retroactively invalidate any software patent ever granted (it'd be a hard enough fight just to get software patents blocked for the future), and courts examining the patents tend to look at whether the patent was (or could have been) valid at the time of its granting, not whether it makes sense now.
>Gruber is being consistent here: he doesn't like software patents
Funny that he doesn't say that in this post. Nothing like "I'm against software patents, but Google seems to play the software patent game when it suits them". Instead he says 'there are some who will argue that there are no “worthy patents”' which 1) implies he's not one of them and 2) conflates software patents with all types of patents.
>Google would actually have a moral high ground if they hadn't even bid for the Novell patents.
Google has the moral highground because, unlike Apple and others, they have not been suing people over software patents.
Gruber's posts shouldn't be read in isolation -- and that applies to this post and his stance on software patents; agree with him or disagree with him, he has a narrative that is consistent[1] through DF and The Talk Show.
If you only read Gruber's posts that make it to HN, you're missing context because he may have made other posts that provide background (and, while Gruber's fairly good about linking back to what he's said in the past, he's not perfect).
If you only read Gruber's posts, you miss context that may have been building in comments he makes in his linked list entries. In fact, Gruber has mostly avoided saying anything about Lodsys because he has been linking to others that he feels have said what he believes more eloquently, adding a small paragraph of commentary.
I'm not claiming that Gruber's "perfect" by any means. I'm simply saying that Gruber has a narrative to what he writes that shouldn't be subjected to soundbite treatment.
With respect to Google, we must simply agree to disagree that they have a moral high ground on this and other matters. Gruber contends (and I mostly agree) that they do not for various reasons.
[1] I'd originally said remarkably consistent, but the only thing remarkable about that is that so many other journalists/bloggers aren't. This consistency, by the by, is also ignored by anyone who suggests that Gruber is an "uncritical fanboy". Over the last year, I can think of a number of posts where Gruber has criticized Apple fairly harshly over decisions that have been made, including the removal of "store" buttons from the Kindle and Kobo apps, etc.
>If you only read Gruber's posts, you miss context that may have been building in comments he makes in his linked list entries. In fact, Gruber has mostly avoided saying anything about Lodsys because he has been linking to others that he feels have said what he believes more eloquently, adding a small paragraph of commentary.
I think it's pretty normal to base criticisms of a blog post on the blog post itself rather than a complete reading of all of a blog's posts.
You make good points, but there are a few factors you have to think about. First, the built-in AI has been designed by people with great knowledge of the game and its strategy. The fact that a totally generic AI system with zero knowledge of the game can learn on the fly and beat the hand-tuned AI is pretty impressive.
They were training online during gameplay, so each round started fresh with an untrained system.
>The fact that a totally generic AI system with zero knowledge of the game can learn on the fly and beat the hand-tuned AI is pretty impressive.
Yes; but, like, Samuel's learning checker playing programs in the 50s and 60s did that.
>They were training online during gameplay, so each round started fresh with an untrained system.
I'm not really sure how that is considered training.
Like Tim_Benham's comment, on a first read of the paper, I would be concerned that the AI is beating to inbuilt AI due to what could be termed 'save-game cheating'.
And there's still the issue of whether it is overspecialised to just exploit the inbuilt AI in some way.
