Re: [Communicator-user] Communicator and VoiceXML?

[Bradford W. M. <Bra...@mo...>]

Turing machines, however, are a bear to program. What's far more important
than simple theoretical computational power is having the appropriate
expressive power, i.e., the right abstraction. Attempting to impose the
right abstraction on a state machine is probably not the most efficient use
of resources, just as I would not want to try to write the X window system
in PROLOG (which is also Turing equivalent to more or less everything else),
let alone use it once I was done.

Having the right architecture and abstraction makes it easier to envision
and create the right solutions. I think the community is still searching for
the right thing, but (in solid agreement with Alex (for a change! :-)) I'm
pretty sure it isn't state machines.
-- 
Bradford W. Miller

Distinguished Member of Technical Staff
Symbolic and Distributed Artificial Intelligence
Intelligent Systems Lab; Human Interface Labs

Motorola Laboratories
7700 W. Parmer Lane, Mail Drop PL11
Austin TX 78729, USA

(512) 996-6851 (v), (512) 996-7320 (f) 877...@sk...
Bra...@mo...

> From: "Bob Carpenter"<bob...@sp...>
> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:03:47 -0500
> To: <com...@li...>
> Subject: [Communicator-user] Communicator and VoiceXML?
> 
> and (3) states + memory = Turing machine, so I'd
> contend that "state-based" systems impose *no* limitations.