Code center > Suggestions
Mutation Protection method- in voting
Numsgil:
--- Quote from: peterb ---
--- Quote from: Numsgil ---
--- Quote from: jknilinux ---10 .flagpreserve store is pretty much the exact same thing as 10 .protect store. I think you're basically saying the same thing as the Ericl and Bacillus hybrid (which became the final draft of the idea), you're saying to make an instruction to protect DNA as opposed to metadata, plus costs. If you read through the posts, you'll see this was bacillus's original idea.
However, the refprotectedbits instruction seems like it might be able to address some of the problems the metadata camp was having with eric's idea- namely, treating the protected DNA as a single object vs. a wad of instructions.
Nums- what do you think?
--- End quote ---
I don't like having the DNA be able to influence itself like that, even through the stack. This isn't me speaking as a developer, just as a user. I prefer mutation rates to be an inherent property of a given bp, instead of inserted mid stream. DNA being able to influence itself like that is a path that leads to things like DNA manually copying itself during reproduction as with Avida, which is a valid path for ALife in general but not the direction I want to see Darwinbots head in.
--- End quote ---
Perhaprs two ideas why it is nice to have it as a general command.
In nature some DNA parts are more preserved then others, and thats organized whitin the DNA itself (so it 'll be more like nature).
For example people come with various eyecolors dough you see rarely a human with 5 eyes. So beeing able to preserve parts isnt that strange.
--- End quote ---
It's not the protection of DNA I don't like, it's having the protection be coded inside the DNA. To me, instead of doing something that protects the next 25 bps, or whatever, those 25 bps would be protected because of some intrinsic property they have. That way, the command that protects the next 25 bps won't potentially get separated from the 25 bps it's meant to protect. It's just a gut feeling, I can't totally rationalize it. I just think that having the DNA be able to influence its physical structure is a slippery slope. We as coders should be able to, and mutations should be able to, but it should be on a different level.
--- Quote ---Hmmm VB6.....
Is conversion to VB.net possible ? (C# isnt mostly not that much faster, as anyother complete groundup rebuilds.)
It might require tools to convert which I dont have....
--- End quote ---
It's possible, but it might as well be a conversion to C. VB6 and VB.net are totally different, and it's a non trivial amount of effort to convert Darwinbots to use .net. Eric was working on it, IIRC, but I don't remember how far he got.
--- Quote from: jknilinux ---Nums-
You know eric, IRL? Do you know what's going on? Will DB rot and remain at 2.44 until DB3 comes out?
--- End quote ---
Not in person, but I have his email. I'll shoot him an email and see what's up.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version