Re: it's not just the box dummy - it's just a house of cards.

James

I much appreciated your response.  Since you responded to the list, rather
than to me, I am doing the same. 

You raised some interesting points - 

> Back in the early 70's I was a cofounder in a company based in NYC and we
were
> developing a systems design tool/code generator.
> 
> Just for the heck of it, another partner and I took a night course in AI
at
> Columbia and walked away from that with the idea that as long as we do
not know
> how the human brain works we can never artifically emulate the process. 
Hence
> rule based "expert" systems, on VERY fast computers, is as good as it
gets.
> 

My ambition is not to clone the brain, since nature does this very well,
and I don't know how it works either.  Anyway, it might take a little
while!  I am convinced that the brain's intelligence is not based on
advanced mathematics.  If it were, then a small baby learning to grasp an
object for the first time would be doing this by improving its powers of
integration - this hardly stands up.  I am not really trying to create an
intelligent machine although I may have made a step in this direction.  

My objective, from the beginnning, was to build a better mousetrap (for
application development).

So I concentrated on one aspect ot the brain - its ability to treat all
information in a consistent way, including any new data types, to store
automatically all the data in context without any outside help (our brains
are not being re-programmed) and to build data into knowledge.  By studying
the functionality that this provides, rather than the mechanism that
provides it, I have been able to create another mechanism that, in some
respects, has similar functionality.  I have used this as a new paradigm -
a Neural Database - for creating and maintaining AS/400 applications and
the benefits, for development, for maintenance, for performance of
completed applications, etc. are truly unbelievable.  During my long years
in computing, I have seen astonishing changes in price/performance of
hardware that I would not have believed possible when I started. 
Basically, these came about beacuse of miniaturisation.  I believe that my
idea can, at last, provide similar benefits of scale in software, and,
since it is so much simpler, the reason, once again, is miniaturisation. 
It only requires about 4.5mb of object code, 8 physical files, all with
identical structures, no logical files, and creating new entity types or
new applications essentially involves simply adding a few extra records to
that which already exists, rather than creating something new.  Mostly, no
new program code is required.

> The human mind does not work like a computer and applications do not work
like
> the flow of information through a company.  We wanted to create something
on a
> higher plane than even the 4GL we have today.  IMHO, they are not much
more than
> integrity checking code generators.

I agree but applications created with the Neural Database are closer to the
information flow, since they are data (i.e. information) driven.

We are all, quite rightly, proud of the work we have done, but our efforts
are limited by the capabilities of the tools available to us. My aim is to
convince the world that present methods of development, using these tools,
are heading for disaster.  If we stick with them, we will all be out of a
job. Whether the world is interested in my solution is another issue
altogether. .

We have seen how the lack of proper information and other systems (even
paper based) in Russia has caused such problems after the collapse of
communism - if our computer based systems collapse, and if we continue to
use current development methods they will, we will have much worse problems
since our society totally depends on these systems. The y2k problem is a
tiny example of the problems of our existing systems.  Even this might
bring down some companies, although not society itself, I hope!  

> 
> But anyway, since you seem to be hot-n-heavy into viewing design under a
new
> light, maybe you can point me in the direction of others that would like
to kick
> around the choices.  Maybe we can even start a thread that can compete
with the
> number of posts involving the "good ol' days" or CA/400 bashing. <bg>

I wish I could.  I know of plenty of people working in AI, basing their
work on maths that I do not understand.  I have been trying to obtain
interest in the overall problem, but, as I said in my original response to
Scott's post, people are far too busy fighting their day-to-day battles
with their bows and arrows to worry whether they will win the war.  They do
not have time to look at the new machine gun that might ensure victory.

Scott's original post has produced relatively few responses and these have
tended to be more about the quality of existing apps, rather than about
overall philosophy or concepts.  A question about getting a PC file to the
AS/400 has already produced more responses in just a few hours.

One of the responses to Scott's post, from Tim McCarthy, started 

>Wow, how rare, conversations about concepts.>.

This, like yours, is one of the exceptions.  I will respond to his reply
separately.

If you agree with the overall problem, have you, or has anyone else, any
ideas how we might get some discussion going about the seriousness of the
situation and how we might educate people to widen their horizons and look
at the wood, not just the trees.  


Certainly, lets start a new thread.  Would you like to kick it off? 

Let us hope that many people will join in. If people think my pessimism is
way over the top, let them stand up and be counted!


Rob Dixon,
Erros plc.

----------
> From: James W. Kilgore <qappdsn@ibm.net>
> To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: it's not just the box dummy - it's just a house of cards.
> Date: 16 July 1998 20:02
> 
> 
> 
> Rob Dixon wrote:
> 
> > <<snip>>
> >
> > These are my personal views.
> >
> > The real problem?
> >
> > At present, we separate rules from data and encapsulate them in
programs
> > (and so set them in concrete) and we put the data in a database.  I
call
> > this artificial split Separatism. This, in my view, is not the way the
> > brain works, and it is the fundamental problem behind all our efforts.
> 
> <<really big snip>>
> 
> Rob,
> 
> Back in the early 70's I was a cofounder in a company based in NYC and we
were
> developing a systems design tool/code generator.
> 
> Just for the heck of it, another partner and I took a night course in AI
at
> Columbia and walked away from that with the idea that as long as we do
not know
> how the human brain works we can never artifically emulate the process. 
Hence
> rule based "expert" systems, on VERY fast computers, is as good as it
gets.
> 
> Well, a long time later the S/38 was announced and by then I'd moved to
Seattle
> and started my own company.  But I revisited the "rules" we had been
developing
> software under.  Since my company was a S/34 provider we sure as heck
didn't want
> to port that code to the S/38!  But, we had to stay in business and kept
on
> rolling, but my "hobby" project was to separate the application from the
language
> from the OS from the machine.  IBM already had done a lot of that with
CPF/MI
> layer.
> 
> Well, I don't want to get too winded here, but the concept was to allow a
> company's "Policy and Procedures" manual to be entered into a system
which would
> drive the computer application.  Just as the current design methods are
too
> combersome, as you mentioned, we tried to break apart every entity of
information
> and assign rules to it.  Entities would be assembled into forms and forms
would
> be shuffled through the corporate mill based upon your job description
and the
> forms requirements/routing.
> 
> The human mind does not work like a computer and applications do not work
like
> the flow of information through a company.  We wanted to create something
on a
> higher plane than even the 4GL we have today.  IMHO, they are not much
more than
> integrity checking code generators.
> 
> When I would discuss the idea with peers 15 years ago I would receive
that "Earth
> to James" look but I still believe it's viable.
> The foundation for the concept was after reading "Principles of Systems"
by Jay
> W. Forrester (more than once till I finally "got" it).
> 
> In the big picture, the purpose is to emulate information flow.  The
"manual"
> could be updated real-time and the application driver would react
accordingly.
> Unfortuantely, up until variable length fields and date/time data types
were
> intoduced, the DBMS was and to a lesser degress still is the big
stumbling
> block.  The other was speed.  But that is becomming a moot point.
> 
> The other big stumbling block is getting a company to actually define
their
> policies and procedures! ;-)
> I'm still trying to incorporate the "it depends" answer I keep getting.
> 
> Just a minor digression: If I recall, it was also in the early 80's that
"natural
> language" query front ends were developed.  The flaw: People just don't
know
> English well enough to ask a question properly.  The example given was
that a
> user would type: "Give me a list of all of the registers voters in New
Hamphire
> and Vermont."  The computer came back with nothing.  Why? You can't be
registered
> in New Hamphire AND Vermont.  Interpreting intent vs strict language
construct is
> a biggie!
> 
> But anyway, since you seem to be hot-n-heavy into viewing design under a
new
> light, maybe you can point me in the direction of others that would like
to kick
> around the choices.  Maybe we can even start a thread that can compete
with the
> number of posts involving the "good ol' days" or CA/400 bashing. <bg>
> 
> 
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
> +---

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---