>That's fair. I should have asked: what's known or believed about the "right way" to build robowaifus, and what constraints does that impose on how they're developed?
Heh, I'm pretty sure that
we're all just making up the rules as we go along here, Anon. Back in Orville & Wilbur's day, I believe they used to just call that "flying by the seat of your pants". :^)
>tl;dr
I guess we'll know most 'requirements & constraints' once we've gotten through delivering the first
Model A robowaifu kits. For a brief synopsis of some domains of interest involved with a good outcome, you might refer to this post to Anon : (
>>33755 ).
>In my case, I need backpropagation, which necessitates keeping track of a computation graph, which necessitates the Variable-Function-Module style of development. I believe I'll eventually need asynchronous distributed systems for data & configuration management, which necessitates redundancy, replicability, and recovery, which necessitate something like a Streams-Databases-Controllers style of development. For synchronous distributed systems, which I don't see a need for right now, I'd add REST to the list, which necessitates serializable interfaces & stateless implementations. There are other more generic requirements, but any modern programming language should be able to handle those, so I wouldn't need to implement anything to handle them.
Sound amazing, actually. I wish you good success with each of your requirements! I actually plan to integrate some REST capabilities in
RW Foundations, primarily to simplify messaging to the robowaifu's Master/support home networks for offloading computation on-premises. As you might imagine, safety & security are important topics for any such arrangement.
>It could also be that different aspects of robowaifus should be built in different ways, but I think it's still worth listing them out. It might be worthwhile to have different "core" modules for each required style of development. Cognition might require backpropagation, data & configuration management might require redundancy-replicability-recovery, robotic control might require something analogous to what Unreal Engine does (whatever that is).
Certainly the heterogenous development approach has been the norm for almost all big systems of today, and perhaps it will be so in this case. While the big tent of C++ code is the ideal as a target design-goal, the realworld will likely necessitate other software somehow architected to work together with RW Foundations during the next several years, I imagine. Hard- and soft-realtime requirements are
the big performance constraint, however, for a realworld robowaifu living at home with her Master. Most other approaches will likely not match up to that need (and integration with foreign systems only exacerbates this problem significantly). C++ can & will meet that need.
I'm not pretending that this is the
one perfect, best way (it's not of course, since no language is perfect) -- but in my studied opinion this is as close as we all can get ATM, all things being considered.
Blender is probably one of the best FOSS concept-proof examples of this today: a huge, highly-complex, high-performance system incrementally developed over year's time as C => C++ , even while integrating other external libraries (also almost always written in C and/or C++). So, our ideal here
can be done. :^)
>(I'm going to be out for the next few weeks for my annual horse cult affairs. I'll probably check in at nights, but I'll be slow to respond, and I don't expect to make any dev progress until that's over.)
Haha, have fun CyberPonk! Give my love
to Derpy o.O :D Stay safe and look forward to hearing from you when you get back. Cheers, Anon. :^)
>===
Message too long. Click
here
to view full text.
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 09/26/2024 (Thu) 01:20:50.