[Fonc] Missing Final Annual Report?

[Dave Crossland]

Hi!

I read that VRPI ran for 6 years instead of 5, that is, beyond 2011 and
into 2012.

But I couldn't see a 6th report in http://vpri.org/html/writings.php -
these are the 5 I found:

2007 http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2007008_steps.pdf

2008 http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2008004_steps08.pdf

2009 http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2009016_steps09.pdf

2010 http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2010004_steps10.pdf

2011 http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2011004_steps11.pdf

Was a report made for the end of the NSF funding in 2012?

[Loup Vaillant David]

On Fri, 2016-04-22 at 11:34 -0400, Dave Crossland wrot

Post by Dave Crossland
Hi!
I read that VRPI ran for 6 years instead of 5, that is, beyond 2011
and into 2012.
But I couldn't see a 6th report in http://vpri.org/html/writings.php
[…]
Was a report made for the end of the NSF funding in 2012?

Hi,

Here's what I remember for earlier threads:

The 6th report has been written (around 2013, I believe). It is
allegedly available on the NFS website, yet no one to date managed to
retrieve it. It is unclear whether the VPRI is allowed to release it
independently.

Does *anyone* know of a way to get that report?

Loup.

[Julian Leviston]

Hi Dan
I should mention to all that I did write a final report for NSF, and this is on their site.
I was not sufficiently happy with my writing on the parts that I wrote and (as in the past) decided to do a better job for the Viewpoints version of this. But as John Lennon once observed "Life happens while you are making plans". Other things have gotten in the way.
Cheers
Alan

Julian

http://www.getcontented.com.au/ <http://www.getcontented.com.au/> - Amazing website creation service. Get a professional, distinguished yet highly affordable website today.
http://www.happylearnjavascripttutorial.com/ <http://www.happylearnjavascripttutorial.com/> - begin programming with JavaScript today using our awesome new method!
http://www.happylearnhaskelltutorial.com/ <http://www.happylearnhaskelltutorial.com/> - begin programming with Haskell today using our awesome new method!
Ph. 02 8005 0701

On Fri, 2016-04-22 at 11:34 -0400, Dave Crossland wrot

Post by Dave Crossland
Hi!
I read that VRPI ran for 6 years instead of 5, that is, beyond 2011
and into 2012.
But I couldn't see a 6th report in http://vpri.org/html/writings.php
[
]
Was a report made for the end of the NSF funding in 2012?

Hi,
The 6th report has been written (around 2013, I believe). It is
allegedly available on the NFS website, yet no one to date managed to
retrieve it. It is unclear whether the VPRI is allowed to release it
independently.
Does *anyone* know of a way to get that report?
Loup.
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org

[Dave Crossland]

Post by Dave Crossland
Was a report made for the end of the NSF funding in 2012?

Just to close the loop on this, I made a NSF request and then I got a copy
from Kim :)

Thank you Kim!!

I'll digest them all at the weekend :)

[Dirk Pranke]

I'd be interested in the final report as well. Maybe it can be shared more
widely, even if it isn't published on the site?

-- Dirk

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by Dave Crossland
Was a report made for the end of the NSF funding in 2012?

Just to close the loop on this, I made a NSF request and then I got a copy
from Kim :)
Thank you Kim!!
I'll digest them all at the weekend :)
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org

[Kim Rose]

We are going to post on vpri website in our "writings" section.
Kim

I'd be interested in the final report as well. Maybe it can be shared more widely, even if it isn't published on the site?
-- Dirk
Was a report made for the end of the NSF funding in 2012?
Just to close the loop on this, I made a NSF request and then I got a copy from Kim :)
Thank you Kim!!
I'll digest them all at the weekend :)
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org

[Alan Kay]

To all
We will put it on the site
Cheers
Alan

From: Dirk Pranke <***@chromium.org>
To: Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com>
Cc: ***@mailman.vpri.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Fonc] Missing Final Annual Report?

I'd be interested in the final report as well. Maybe it can be shared more widely, even if it isn't published on the site?
-- Dirk
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:


On 22 April 2016 at 11:34, Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com> wrote:

Was a report made for the end of the NSF funding in 2012?

Just to close the loop on this, I made a NSF request and then I got a copy from Kim :) 
Thank you Kim!! 
I'll digest them all at the weekend :) 

[Loup Vaillant David]

It's up!
Thank you all, I can hardly resist reading it right now —I'm supposed to
work.

Loup.

Post by Alan Kay
To all
We will put it on the site
Cheers
Alan

[Monty Zukowski]

Could you post a link? When I look on http://vpri.org/html/writings.php right
now I don't see it.



Thanks,



Monty

Post by Loup Vaillant David
It's up!

Thank you all, I can hardly resist reading it right now —I'm supposed to
work.

Post by Loup Vaillant David
Loup.

On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 00:03 +0000, Alan Kay wrote:
&gt; To all
&gt; We will put it on the site
&gt; Cheers
&gt; Alan
&gt;

Post by Loup Vaillant David
_______________________________________________

Fonc mailing list
***@mailman.vpri.org
<http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org>

[Dupéron Georges]

Post by Monty Zukowski
Could you post a link? When I look on http://vpri.org/html/writings.php
right now I don't see it.

I had a hard time finding them too, as their release date is
2012-10-31. Comparing with the latest snapshot from archive.org showed
me these files:

STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming, 2012 Final Report
Submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) October 2012 (Part
1)
STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming, 2012 Final Report
Submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) October 2012 (Part
2)
STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming, 2012 Final Report,
Appendix I, Submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) October
2012
STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming, 2012 Final Report,
Appendix II, Submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF)
October 2012

http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001a_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001b_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001c_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001d_steps.pdf

--
Regards,
Georges Dupéron

[Reuben Thomas]

Post by Dupéron Georges

Post by Monty Zukowski
Could you post a link? When I look on http://vpri.org/html/writings.php
right now I don't see it.

I had a hard time finding them too, as their release date is
2012-10-31. Comparing with the latest snapshot from archive.org showed
STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming, 2012 Final Report
Submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) October 2012 (Part
1)
STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming, 2012 Final Report
Submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) October 2012 (Part
2)
STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming, 2012 Final Report,
Appendix I, Submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF) October
2012
STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming, 2012 Final Report,
Appendix II, Submitted to the National Science Foundation (NSF)
October 2012
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001a_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001b_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001c_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001d_steps.pdf

​These seem to be 404 right now. Or did I misunderstand and that's what you
meant?

[Martin McClure]

Post by Dupéron Georges
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001a_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001b_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001c_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001d_steps.pdf
​These seem to be 404 right now. Or did I misunderstand and that's what
you meant?

http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001_steps.pdf appears to be the entire
final report, AFAICT.

Regards,

-Martin

[Kim Rose]

Sorry folks, yes, for convenience we changed it and uploaded a single document.
Thanks for your patience and continued interest!
Kim

Post by Martin McClure

Post by Dupéron Georges
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001a_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001b_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001c_steps.pdf
http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001d_steps.pdf
​These seem to be 404 right now. Or did I misunderstand and that's what
you meant?

http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001_steps.pdf appears to be the entire
final report, AFAICT.
Regards,
-Martin
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org

[Kartik Agaram]

Does anyone know/remember what is meant by "real-time" in this passage?

*"..we got interested in seeing if we could run in real-time on laptops,
and this part of the design and optimization fought some of the goals."*
("Reflections", http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001b_steps.pdf, page 15)

I saw the phrase in several places in the 2012 reports, but didn't see any
references to "real-time" in prior years, except for this one in 2010:

*"Nile itself can be made in a little over 100 lines of code in the OMeta
metalanguage, and optimized to run acceptably in real‑time (also in OMeta)
in another 700 lines. OMeta can be made in itself and optimized in about
100 lines of code."* (http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2010004_steps10.pdf, page 4)

Thanks,
Kartik
http://akkartik.name/about

[Kartik Agaram]

Does anyone know/remember what is meant by "real-time" in this passage?

*"..we got interested in seeing if we could run in real-time on laptops,
and this part of the design and optimization fought some of the goals."*
("Reflections", http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001b_steps.pdf, page 15)

I saw the phrase in several places in the 2012 reports, but didn't see any
references to "real-time" in prior years, except for this one in 2010:

*"Nile itself can be made in a little over 100 lines of code in the OMeta
metalanguage, and optimized to run acceptably in real‑time (also in OMeta)
in another 700 lines. OMeta can be made in itself and optimized in about
100 lines of code."* (http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2010004_steps10.pdf, page 4)

Thanks,
Kartik
http://akkartik.name/about

[Dave Crossland]

Post by Kartik Agaram
Does anyone know/remember what is meant by "real-time" in this passage?

My personal interpretation was that it meant 'live interactive'

[Kartik Agaram]

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by Kartik Agaram
Does anyone know/remember what is meant by "real-time" in this passage?

My personal interpretation was that it meant 'live interactive'

I guess I don't understand what the original goal was if it wasn't an
interactive system..

[Dave Crossland]

Post by Kartik Agaram
I guess I don't understand what the original goal was if it wasn't an
interactive system..

Perhaps they didn't know if it would be fast enough to beinteractive, since
it would lack optimisation code.

[Nathan Green]

My understanding is they expected to use a supercomputer to get the
performance needed to have interactivity. (Avoiding wasting their limited
time budget on optimization work.) Early on they got good enough
performance to run on a laptop and decided to keep the system running
within the limitations of a laptop.

Nathan

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by Kartik Agaram
I guess I don't understand what the original goal was if it wasn't an
interactive system..

Perhaps they didn't know if it would be fast enough to beinteractive,
since it would lack optimisation code.
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org

[Dan Amelang]

You're all pretty much right.

The idea was to make a really small system that captured the necessary
functionality in a very succinct and understandable way. Many of us
predicted that we'd have to leave out anything that even smelled like
optimization to reach this goal. In general, this proved to be true.

To perform at an interactive speed, the system either have to run on a
supercomputer, or we'd have to "enable optimized mode" (i.e., pull in
alternative, but functionally equivalent code) just for the times that we
needed the speed. The former is a way of living in the future (and our code
was *meant* for the future). The latter follows a generally good practice
that can be done today: have a functionally-correct version of our systems
that is easier to make, verify, modify, extend, etc. and plug in
optimizations as needed that are based on and can be tested against the
inefficient version.

It was just nice that, after creating a succinct 2D graphics rendering
system, a path was found to make it run fast enough for interactive speeds.
Only a small part needed to have a "primitive", low-level path. An
optimized, multicore-aware language runtime was made. And the rest was just
compiling the high-level code down to efficient, low-level code.

Dan

Post by Nathan Green
My understanding is they expected to use a supercomputer to get the
performance needed to have interactivity. (Avoiding wasting their limited
time budget on optimization work.) Early on they got good enough
performance to run on a laptop and decided to keep the system running
within the limitations of a laptop.
Nathan

Post by Dave Crossland

Post by Kartik Agaram
I guess I don't understand what the original goal was if it wasn't an
interactive system..

Perhaps they didn't know if it would be fast enough to beinteractive,
since it would lack optimisation code.
_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org

_______________________________________________
Fonc mailing list
http://mailman.vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc_mailman.vpri.org

[Alan Kay]

Hi

My major error in this project -- it turned out to be interesting, but hurt one very important part -- was to switch goals in mid-project from "running in real-time on a super computer" to "running in real-time on a laptop".
"Real-time" meaning that all the interactive parts were within the range of what humans expect when they deal with a user interface -- i.e. a completely usable system.
This decision change happened because Dan Amelang's "Nile" graphics was surprisingly efficient as well as being super tiny (< 500 lines of Nile code). This got me thinking about doing live demos in talks, and that some of this could help the design of the system.
However, it moved the pragmatics from "paying money for HW" and working on the semantics (which was the original aim) to imposing pragmatics in the software.

We did get something quite impressive on a laptop, but ultimately I think we didn't have enough cycles to both design/invent and optimize.
We had this problem at Parc when we couldn't replace the Altos in a timely way. This led to some excellent software engineering, but the new design and invention part got blunted.
Mea culpa!
Cheers
Alan


From: Kartik Agaram <***@gmail.com>
To: Alan Kay <***@yahoo.com>
Cc: Dirk Pranke <***@chromium.org>; Dave Crossland <***@lab6.com>; "***@mailman.vpri.org" <***@mailman.vpri.org>
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Fonc] Missing Final Annual Report?

Does anyone know/remember what is meant by "real-time" in this passage?

"..we got interested in seeing if we could run in real-time on laptops, and this part of the design and optimization fought some of the goals." ("Reflections", http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001b_steps.pdf, page 15)

I saw the phrase in several places in the 2012 reports, but didn't see any references to "real-time" in prior years, except for this one in 2010:

"Nile itself can be made in a little over 100 lines of code in the OMeta metalanguage, and optimized to run acceptably in real‑time (also in OMeta) in another 700 lines. OMeta can be made in itself and optimized in about 100 lines of code." (http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2010004_steps10.pdf, page 4)

Thanks,
Kartik
http://akkartik.name/about

[Loup Vaillant David]

Hi,

I'm not sure this is such a big mistake —if at all.

Many people today believe software is as simple as it can be. They say
"no silver bullet", see that the latest fad doesn't make things much
better, and accept that most complexity is essential. Then the STEPS
project gathers enough silver dust to forge *several* bullets,
demonstrating that over 99.9% of software complexity is still
accidental.

This just sounds too good to be true.

The most common objections are drivers and performance. Drivers are
easy to brush aside, since they represent less than 1% of a complete OS.
Performance however is not so easy: history (GCC, LLVM, JavaScript
engines…) tends to show that performance requires complexity —lots of
it.

If you didn't push for acceptable performance, Frank would have been
more feature-complete, but also less convincing. We *need* that
conviction if we're going to make the future of computing happen at all.

My model of you agrees with all of this, and should be happy with this
choice. So I'm a little confused. Besides, you're not done, are you?

Loup.

Post by Alan Kay
Hi
My major error in this project -- it turned out to be interesting, but
hurt one very important part -- was to switch goals in mid-project
from "running in real-time on a super computer" to "running in
real-time on a laptop".
"Real-time" meaning that all the interactive parts were within the
range of what humans expect when they deal with a user interface --
i.e. a completely usable system.
This decision change happened because Dan Amelang's "Nile" graphics
was surprisingly efficient as well as being super tiny (< 500 lines of
Nile code). This got me thinking about doing live demos in talks, and
that some of this could help the design of the system.
However, it moved the pragmatics from "paying money for HW" and
working on the semantics (which was the original aim) to imposing
pragmatics in the software.
We did get something quite impressive on a laptop, but ultimately I
think we didn't have enough cycles to both design/invent and optimize.
We had this problem at Parc when we couldn't replace the Altos in a
timely way. This led to some excellent software engineering, but the
new design and invention part got blunted.
Mea culpa!
Cheers
Alan