Difference between revisions of "Alan Kay: Programming and Scaling"

Latest revision as of 21:58, 6 December 2017

so

of course we never want to spend too much time looking

back especially when talking to students

because the world is in front of you

but one

point I wanted to make and this has always been

true and has never reflected adequately

in any rewards that a person might receive

and that is that when

good work gets done it almost always gets done

first in a powerful research

community of

very friendly and very critical

colleagues who know how to argue

the right way so as you're looking

ahead for yourself finding

these people in general is

critical and finding them in particular

is critical so these are just some of the people that

have

associated with some of the work we've been doing it

viewpoints Research Institute

and

very few awards actually

are given to groups

that this is a real mistake in our field

because I believe in our field that you not only have

ideas you have to get them implemented and

it is often the case that people

with ideas are not so good at implementing and so

you need to have a kind of a team of

different kinds of talents who are able to

work together

one little look-back though

it could be so I as we as the

term is meant today I made up the term object-oriented

programming but I made it up for something

different than the term stands for today

and what the term stands for

today this could be the 50th anniversary

of it so that's quite surprising to think it

nineteen 61

and it goes back to a very surprising

form which is

actually a machine so

there's no object-oriented programming language in 1961

that I'm aware of I actually started

in computing myself in 1961

so there was nothing like an object-oriented programming

back then but there is a piece of hardware that

can most easily be

explained to you is that this was a

computer hardware that

executed a

set of instructions that look like the byte

coded VMs that you're familiar with from Java

in fact those byte coded VMs that Java

have came originally because they were the

basic instruction set on this machine

so this is one of the first attempts

at a building a higher-level machine

to reflect the idea in the early 60s that

we were going to program in levels of language

higher than C and

Bob Barton here invented

this machine and sadly the

hardware of the day is not as advanced as this machine

was so for those of you

who think we've been engaged in steady progress

in some form

of Darwinian processes that are making

things better for us it's actually quite the opposite quite

the opposite in history

you can find really incredible

geniuses like this man who anticipated

so strongly that we

can only emulate his ideas and software

today intel hasn't gotten around to understanding

them yet so this I find

really quite sad on the other hand it

gives you a sense of this person

and if you want to read an interesting paper probably

the shortest greatest paper ever written

in computer science you can read this one

written in 1961 by Bob

Barton new approach to the functional design

of a digital computer it's only six pages long

and it lays out what

a felicitous

execution environment for

language would be like and how it would be realized in

a computer this computer was built by

the way it lived on longest in Germany the

German banking system loved it

because it was uncrashable why was it uncrashable

because it was the first hardware or software system

to have what we call capabilities today

an application programmer simply could not

write a program that could hurt any

other program on the computer that was

built directly into the into the hardware of this

machine and the reason

I'm showing you this just because

part of it is everybody should understand the history

of our field if we were physicists and we failed

to understand what Newton did we should be shot and

but in fact in computing we

are very happy not to understand what most

of the founders of our field actually did so

I always like to pick one of them in

the generation before me and

explain what he did but reason I brought it up

here is that I had a course

from this guy this guy was took

a leave of absence from borrows to come teach

at the graduate school I was at and in

this course which was

about advanced systems design instead of teaching

this course he handed out a list

of all the papers we should read he

said there are a few things known about advanced

systems design in 1966

they're written down in these papers and I expect you to read

every single one of these papers and understand them and

then he said but it is my job

to firmly disabuse

you of any fondly held ideas

you might have brought into this classroom and translated

into less flowery English what he proposed

to do is to take all of our beliefs

about computing and destroy them

and that is what this class was

the best class I've ever had in a

university or graduate school and

why was this a good idea well

we'll see in a second that the biggest problem

we have as human beings

is that we confuse our beliefs with

reality so we seem

to live in a reality here but actually it's a construction

that we look at one way and

another culture might look at it another way and my

little dog Watson might look at this

whole thing from a completely different point of view and when

we treat a construction as

reality you are actually binding the kinds of thoughts

that we can actually have and worse than that we're picking a

tiny part of the past that led to this

particular construction as the only past

we ever drawn so

what this guy did is just demolished everything that

we thought including things that he actually believed

in so he demolished everything no no

proposition was safe

and at the end of it we

actually were free so we could

then learn computing from the point

of view of it being simply opinions

and a little bit

hat have been done so far up that way but might

not have anything particular to do with

a desirable future so here's a paradigm

that existed back then and

is pretty much what we do today and I call it the make

and fix paradigm and it

started off with data structures and procedures they

were like tinker toys maybe a little bit like clocks

we fit we

make gears we fit them together called

api's they have to fit pretty closely

for the thing to work and

that's pretty much the only architecture we have and

of course you can make a tic-tac-toe computer

out of tinker toy this is Danny Hillis has a few

it but like

such things was once dismantled to

be shipped to a museum and when they put it back together

and never worked again and the reason

was it was just luck that all

of these Tinkertoy actually work because there was play there

there strings inside the

strings weren't the same length anymore and

that reminds you of any programs and

this is this murky thing is actually Mexico

City has anybody ever been to Mexico City

so it's 20 million people

couldn't be more smoggy

and it's kind of a mess

and it's just the kind of it's just a slightly

more extreme version of a lot of American cities

where individuals

have carpenters have

decided to do a house here or a house there and

the problem is is that each

individual little ant doing something

has led to a

totality that is almost unbearable

and yet 20 million people are forced to live in it and to

me this is what software today is kind of

like it's

basically using almost the exact same architectures

as we're known 50

years ago because even

the so called object-oriented languages today have lots

of setters in the objects and when you have a setter in an object

urned an object back into a data structure and

so you get this huge

amount of scaling of

complications but you don't get a lot

of bang for the buck

it's not clear what to do with it but

what

yeah

so if

we look at software in terms of lines

of code for instance

a one book

of software is about 20,000 lines of code and a

foot of books is about I have

it here a meter is about a million lines

of code so if you stack up a meters height

high a book it's about only a million lines of code

okay so

if we look at some software systems

for instance Vista has

120 million lines of code in it so

that's a hundred and twenty meters of

books to read and

six thousand books and another

140 million for the apps another seven thousand

books so we're talking thirteen thousand books

for the simplest part of

personal computing that we're all used to anybody

here read thirteen thousand books

anybody here read one book

okay just checking

so

there's a lot and I know a

big software company whose

name you might have heard that has

to deal with a live

base of about 350 million lines of code and

as they say about 145,000

screens so screens

is a term that was used a long time ago for 3270

terminals and so if they call

their user interface today made out of screens it's probably that they

just adapted those old 3270

screens so this is about seventeen

thousand five hundred books worth of software

nobody in that company knows what it is

but they have thousands and thousands of people

maintaining it so the question we should be asking as

computer scientists first let alone engineers

there's computer scientists we should be asking

is that how

rite to get that much

functionality or is something

wrong

so one way of looking at it is if your

are two curves so

the complication curve

here I just put up

you know about a a factor

of a hundred this

and so

we could see that while we like the complication curve to

run at the same rate as the complexity curve it actually

is way ahead of the game so for

a certain level of complexity like say in personal

computing the actual complication

might be a factor of a hundred or a factor of a thousand

like all

but one tenth of one percent in the Microsoft

software suite might be useless

code code that

is there perhaps for compatibility reasons code

that they don't dare take out

in fact I know that for

example if everybody here is probably used Microsoft

Word and it's quite surprising that

Microsoft Word when you have paragraph justification

on actually has selection

errors to this day if you ever had

that happen got justification on you click in

there and you start typing and the type

character goes somewhere else that bug

there for more than twenty five years it's been reported

literally thirty or forty thousand times and

they cannot find the bug

this is the most elementary

thing that you ever do in a word processor is to

be able to select where you want the character go

they can't find it and fact

I've heard that part of Microsoft words listing has

been lost they've had to recreate it from

from assembly code

so that's kind of a state of affairs that

we probably should be thinking about

because when you start getting into factors

of a hundred and factors of a thousand and factors of 10,000

actually talking about the difference between somebody

being able to comprehend something and maybe

not be able to comprehend it at all

so

if we go back to our diagram here we

can pick up some issues that we might care

about now

say something about the communication with aliens issue

a little bit later what that is

and

if we look in this morass

of stuff there's one interesting

thing that isn't like this that

is huge and yet it is tidy

its level of complication

exactly balances its level

of complexity and that's the Internet so

it's worthwhile thinking about that that even in a poorly

done C program the Internet is actually controlled

than twenty thousand lines of code itself

and that twenty thousand lines of code can be written in

about a thousand lines of code so tcp/ip is

a kind of a universal DNA

for an architecture of billions

of nodes in a

dynamic system that has never been stopped

has never been stopped from when it first

got turned on in September 1969

so replaced all of its atoms at

least once and has never been stopped

it has been changed

it has been improved

but in fact it's an eternal system

it is scaled well and so forth and I'm

not talking about the web of course web is

a mess but the internet was done by

experts you had a couple of those guys Vint Cerf and

Bob Kahn here at different times these

guys knew what they were doing and boy

when you look at this I

think why it is why

did the internet turn out so well and why can't we

that way because you could imagine taking the

inner as a model for doing software modules why

don't people do it

and it's the way I look at

it is a little

jump of

qualitative kind happen here and that

jump is kind of a little jump from gear type things to

biological type things

and in fact those of us who had

been biologists contribute some pilot

biological ideas to the design of the Internet because

of course the Internet is one of the few human

artifacts that

we've made that behaves like about like something

that's alive in that

it repairs itself while it is

still running it is able

to expand and grow and so forth and

so

we can think of the Internet is in

it was made but

it has some of these biological ideas in it

so some of the

same kinds of ideas for scaling

were done in software also around the

same time and some of those were successful

at Xerox PARC but

one of the problems

of these

some of these semi new ideas here is when

they got translated into sea based forms

in order to be recognizable

to people the things

that were like this old paradigm were emphasized

here so for example you got this

really terrible idea of having a so-called object-oriented

system and turning it back into data structures by putting

setters in which allow the very same disastrous

remote assignment

statements to to be done and turns the system into

a much more fragile way of thinking about things

but I think that

what's actually going on here

is that there's a new way of thinking

things that represents a brighter future

for programming and if

this is makin fix for

instance you can fix a clock but you have to negotiate with

the system so at some point the

systems are too complicated for a human being to go into too many

feedback loops too many self regulatory

systems and stuff and you wind up at

best negotiating with the system now the

stuff we're doing in here so far is

in

between we built

it by hand but we made a system

as we've made up many other systems

in software but we haven't made the systems capable

enough to be able to be negotiated

with so I just want to have you think

of it in your head of what it would be like if you're

doing a software system in some new form

of development

interactive development kit

what would that software system actually do

besides just doing what you asked it to

do could it for

instance participate in readapting

the software for future needs about

80% of the cost of all

software that is deployed in industry

comes after the software

has been successfully put out the first time

so the life cycle changes

that are required of the software and the integration and

reintegration actually dominate

all the costs of software but

because of the way companies have

to report their earnings and their expenses

companies cannot charge

upfront for

all of the stuff that you really need

to do to software to allow it to be changed downstream so

what they tend to pay for is just enough money to make the thing

run to its original specs and hardly any money to

be able to fix it up later because they just amortize

those costs of the future and the costs are enormous

o

if we take the

internet as one area and then a slightly

more advanced way of thinking about things is that

once we start thinking in biological terms

we also are thinking about Ecology's

and I hope many

of you have thought enough about the Internet to realize that there

are levels of communication protocols

that could be put on top of

tcp/ip

for example interoperation protocols

that could eliminate the

dependence on specific operating systems

and I hope to get to that in

a few minutes okay

way down the road

what

is actually being put together is something

that is going to have to be discussed in psychological

or mental terms because

the if this

is manipulation

up there just wanted to make a little comment about

biology because

sometimes

if we study computers we don't learn

other things

so we can I'm going to read this diagram both

way so at the

inch scale

now there's

what twenty five

thousand Mike

twenty five thousand four hundred

microns per inch and a ecoli

is about two microns long so it's

about 13,000 microns

per inch a little over ten thousand per

per centimeter

and so if we blow it up by

eighty thousand we get to see this and

of course it's very active so we wouldn't

see this we would see a blur and if

we take the next section up there

we get something that looks like this where we see a bunch of large molecules

we take a section of that so

we're now a magnification of about 10

million we see a medium-sized molecule

has about five thousand atoms in it and these are actually

water atoms so if you like books

like this it's called the machinery light of life

by David Goodsell this is a molecular

biologist who likes to paint and he

realized that doing watercolors of

what is actually going on there could be more clear than

computer graphics or anyway this is

marvelous book for getting an idea so these are individual water molecules these

are calcium ions 5,000

atoms or so

and if

you see the size of this thing compared to it in there

and see it in the size of the larger thing they're

about 120 million molecules

that are not water in

a single living thing

so one of the things to think about in computer

terms is the scale jump from the

lower level of architecture which is polymers like

proteins chains of

atoms to make

long molecules the scale jump to what what

it needs to do to make a living thing is

incredible compared to the scale jump we do when we try

to make objects and I think one of the

mistakes we made years ago was to make objects too

small and we missed

this idea that you might get a lot more out of

making a much more capable more universal

object and try to build things in terms of that

and just for comparison

there are just slightly fewer tinker toys

in Danny Hillis tinker toy

tic-tac-toe playing computer as

there are in one of these proteins so so

a protein you could imagine assembling by hand but you could not imagine assembling

a bacterium by hand

okay got aggro on

okay

so here's a

piece of context that

I always like to ask students about

so here's an interesting thing

about all of us is pretty

much from the time we were born every

person in this room was praised for being bright

right

we just talked up a

storm and we were interested in this and we were so

clever and we were encouraged most

of the time to be clever

it

seems like a good thing and maybe it is because here

we are but imagine

being born with twice the

intellectual capacity of Leonardo

smarter than any of us no

question twice the

intellectual capacity of Leonardo but in 10,000

BC how

far are you going to get how

far did Leonardo get Leonardo could not invent a single

engine for any of his vehicles think about that

maybe the smartest person of his time but he's born in

the wrong time his IQ could not transcend

so IQ is

really not worth that much because

talking about vehicles here's

Henry Ford nowhere

near Leonardo but he happened to be born in the right century

century in which people had already done

a lot of work in making mechanical things and so

it was Duck Soup to make a car that worked and sell

millions of them for four hundred and seventy five

dollars apiece and of

course we have Daimler and Benz here

in Germany so basically when you born at

the right time a whole bunch of things are open to you

so knowledge in many

many cases just Trump's IQ

I

and this is because

there are certain special people who invent new

ways of looking at things so

Ford was powerful because Isaac

Newton changed the way new with the way Europe thought

about things so he changed

an entire way of things and it's one

of the wonderful things about the way knowledge works if you can get a supreme

genius to invent calculus those

of us with more normal IQs can learn it

so we're not shut out from

what the genius does we just can't

calculus by ourselves but once one of these guys turns

things around the knowledge

of the era changes completely this

is why in the United States at least computer science

is almost dead because

of course I would get a lot of argument about that because there are

many people there but the

outlook there has gotten pretty weak

and so the way I think of it

is the

outlook at you have on something is what is

going to give you those extra IQ points but

have a really powerful outlook the knowledge you'll gather

will be powerful and then if you have some extra

brights if you happen to be clever

when you have those first couple of things then

you can be very powerful

so I think of knowledge

as silver and outlook as gold

and IQ is kind of a lead weight

this is killing

computer science because a lot of people in computing don't

bother learning anything because it's

not that difficult to learn how to program badly

right and you can be clever and

write a program in JavaScript to do lots of different

kinds of things the problem is you there's no

place to go with it

so when I look at our field today

from this 50-year perspective

well

looking back I would

say the absolute number of four

four and five Sigma IQs is

actually has actually increased

so if we were to take all

of the people in our field vastly

more and look at the superbright there's

just more than there were 40 50 years ago

but the relative number is much

worse because the

total number is increased tremendously and the

number of the superbright is not increased commensurately

and so there's an enormous amount of noise

from the middle today in the field

an enormous number of artifacts from them

similarly there's

a lot more knowledge of computer science today than there was

40 50 years ago

but the general knowledge of

the practitioners has only increased a little bit the

level the small size

of this increase is almost staggering

given what

there is to know that has been written

down in various places and

then the

number of outlooks that are powerful

has gone way up

over those years and

but the general outlook is hardly more powerful

than it was I'm talking about programming here this

is quite static so something

something is going on that reminds me a lot of pop music

right there if

you sit down and learn music there and

look back over the last six centuries and

it's just some of the most incredible

talking just about classical music I'm talking

about jazz any kind of develop music it just

amazing the riches that are there

yet pop music uses 1/100

of 1% of that and

so I think what what's happened is computing

has turned into a pop culture and

the universities are not helping

in general at least in the u.s.

so Cicero anybody

know a good quote about Cicero having to do with

present and past let's

check out your classical education here

so you know who Cicero was

he was one of those old Roman guys

so Cicero once wrote

he who knows only his own generation remains

forever a child

and

basically what McLuhan

is saying here is we tend to be trapped

in a single conception of the present

makes it hard for us to see it in any terms except

the terms that led up to the present that we're in

and he said and

that means it's hard to conceive of a future that

is an incremental on the present makes

sense right the president is

overwhelming to us and there are all these little things that we can do

a little bit better on it

that gives us a kind of a model that's like this

so

here's some rain falling outside making

a little gully by random

and it happens that a gully by random

just happens to be more efficient

at making the gully bigger so

if you just let that go on for a bit you

get these guys there's no

reason for where these are just some

random rain disturbing some things

there but once it got set up it

got interested in itself just

like our brains do so this

is not a bad model of the way human memory

works we start learning something it was very hard

for us to see what else is going on and

so there's this famous picture of Conrad

Lorentz who discovered that the first thing

a duckling saw when it came out of the egg it thought was his mother

and so if Lawrence

arranged it so he was the first thing they saw so

the little ducks would follow him around and when he

went out swimming they'd follow him around and so

I think that's the way people often approach well

your first programming language right

so probably the most disastrous thing

learn is your first programming language even if it's a good programming

language and the reason is is it's tends

to become computing and

so it might be a better idea to learn two or three

programming languages at the same time even though that's a different

kind of struggle but at least relativize

what people think computing

might be so we got this present

it

comes out of one set of things in the past that

we're daily aware of it

gives rise to an incremental future this

is a lot like academic paper writing in the US

I don't know whether you have to do it here but so

almost all the papers written in in the US and computing

academia are counted so the University

of California counts all papers written by

academics they don't care whether the papers are good or bad they

don't care whether a professor

has a really great idea every five years they

do care if the professor writes 10

or 15 or 20 papers each year

and the same with graduate

students because graduate students are taught to follow in

this mold and often the professor has his name on that very same paper

the graduate student in increases his count

so there are a lot of factors here

but the truth is that the

past is vast

enormous there are billions

of people contributing to the past and every

time we think the present is real we

actually cannot see the rest of the past

so we have to destroy the present

one of the ways of doing it is to

try spend a little time each day trying

to think of what you take as reality as

being just a result of

that rain falling on the ground and

being intensified

get rid of it

once you get rid of it

it's a scary situation

because you've said I'm not going to have anything based

on the course that's not possible you're

just trying but sometimes you get

a little feeling this

is not an idea it's just a feeling

it's like

an odor of perfume

but the fun thing is that little feeling can

actually lead you to look in the past in different

places then

you would normally do and you can bring those up

to that feeling and once

you do that that feeling starts

expanding into a vision and the

vision expands into an actual idea

so this is one way of doing

it and some of the most creative people I know actually

operate this way this is where these ideas come

from that are not just incremental to the

present they come out of

vague even muscular sensations

that you have to go chasing to try

out what they are you try and get the idea too early it

can only be in terms of the present

what we do

so everything that human humans

make is technically technology

so I'm going to and we

have a different meaning for technology so I'm going to change the

Greek root of technology is technique

technique means whatever human make

humans make don't let's call it the arts

and

in the arts we have tinkering I'm

going to do these in historical order so

mammals are creatures who tinker especially

primates especially us and

engineering is a kind of principle

tinkering so

it came before math and science

what does it mean by principles

if you don't have math and science well if you build a building

and it falls down you just build it with twice the

cross-sections of all the beams you don't need any math and

if it doesn't fall down you write it down in a book and

you wind up with this big cookbook that by

the way is the way Babylonians did math the

Greeks hated long books of things like that that

led them to invent the company math we use today

that came next

science as we know it today came

about 400 years ago so

anybody here know how

long our strain of humans has been on the planet

how

long have we been here this is it's kind

of important isn't it for context

so you know about so

it happens that we inherit more from our mother

than our Father because

mitochondria and its

DNA don't fit into sperm but they do fit into OVA

and so when

we got a fertilized egg we cannot only get the union of

the two nuclear DNA s

but we also get the female mitochondrial

DNA and mitochondria are a

little bacteria that were captured a long time ago

to help with energy production in cells they were originally separate

organisms so it turns out you can actually

run computer simulations

on the amount of change in the

female line of humanity should

do this sometime because it's kind of interesting and it

turns out that if you run it back we were all defendi

descended from one female

now of course there are other females around back then but

that female lived 192 thousand

years ago so our particular strain

of humanity has been here but for about 192 thousand

that we only invented science

400 years ago

that's how dumb we are think

about it that's why IQ doesn't count

we never were smart enough to invent science

we blundered around

amusing ourselves with stories for

hundreds of thousands of years so

almost everybody in these fields winds

up doing a combination of them and you kind of want to be in the sweet

spot you want to do a little tinkering a little engineering

a little math a little science and really

difference between the fields is more of temperament than the kinds

of things that you learn some people are idealist

some are pragmatists

now if we look at computing

it's mostly tinkering a

little bit of engineering

maybe a little math hardly any science

and when we say engineering

we don't mean real engineering real

engineering uni Empire State Building in New

York was built in less than a year by less than three thousand people

including dem Demmel it demolishing

the original site and occupancy

so it's built at the rate of two stories a

day the steel was still

110 degrees 40 degrees centigrade when

it came from the factories in Pittsburgh

to make the Empire State Building

that's Engineering so whatever it is we do is

like maybe what Egyptians did making

pyramids piling things on top of each other but

in computing we

could not organize 3,000 people to do a major

thing in less than a year right

have you ever heard of it ever

No so

the word engineering seriously and I do I

don't mean it as a metaphor I'm

saying engineering let's not do away with

engineering has meant the last three or four thousand years we

take that word seriously we haven't got it yet in

software we really

don't know how to do it okay

so this is my favorite hairball

it's actually from

a woolly mammoth so that's a big

hairball I'm

gonna get rid of it because but you

something complicated I'm going to replace it with stars because

nicer to look at but if you think of we're given

this phenomena that's the basic

thing it could be a hairball it could be they're

hairballs and what we want to do is make sense of

it in science and we

have language which is computer

scientists you know can all be made out

of the operation NAND or nor which

invented by a guy by the name of Charles purse in

the 19th century so

we can make all things having to do with language out

of that one operation and

what we

want to do is to come up with something in language

that closely mimics mimics the phenomena

that we're interested in and forget in

fact because of the limitations of our brain that's

about as far as we can go because the brain contains

various kinds of languages that does not contain stars and

so we're interested in the relationships

between those so the reason

I'm explaining this is because when I ask graduate

United States what is their meaning of computer science

they always give me an engineering definition which implies

that they have no idea what the word science actually means this

is what it means

but science

doesn't care whether nature made it or whether

humans made it so we can take a bridge do

exactly the same thing

make a t-shirt explains

how this bridge works and what's cool about engineering

is once you make that t-shirt you

can make another bridge get

hose engineers to make more interesting bridge for a scientist

to look at and you can take

this rather far those are

my favorite bridge in Japan longest

suspension bridge in the world and to give

you an idea of how big it is

there's the Great Pyramid of Egypt and the

Empire State Building next to it so it its towers

are actually the size of the

greatest building created in the early 30s

this is some kind of bridge

makes

you feel good to be an engineer at least it makes me

feel good because I this is you know the

ability to really make engineering and science

harmonize with each other there's no greater

so computing we've

got computers we got software here's

John McCarthy he

the abstraction of all that stuff on a t-shirt that's

the Lisp interpreter in itself one

of my favorite things for more than 50 years

ago 1958

if you don't have

a little tear in your eye when you look at that you're missing something

really really important about our field this

is like one of the greatest things that has ever done because

the same thing with the bridge once somebody does that

man you

can start inventing things that are much more

you can invent computer things that are like

like living things and make

Internet's and so forth so this is

really cool stuff and you

can also look at personal computing and ask

how many t-shirts we

Empire State Building worth of code from Microsoft

but we should ask how many t-shirts does it really take

and so one

of the things that we've done in our approach is

finding that problem difficult

it's really hard

thing through because geez we

murse tin this stuff it looks large it's

complicated so

what you can do is make

a little Frankenstein's monster of

a system it isn't

the one you actually want exactly but it's

kind of cute and it's kind of scary and

if it's also kind of small then

you've actually made the thing that will allow you to think

about this other

guy

and Olay enable you to make a baby step

towards capturing millions

of lines of code in a few

tens of thousands of lines of code

that's one of the things we've been doing so

my website the website of

viewpoints search Institute is Vpr

i.org and

there you will read

more about this project and I'll just show you

one example here

from a bunch of principles

one will be the math wins one

tiny Model T

t-shirt programming and a little bit of particles

and fields so this is one

of our colleagues dan amma lang and

he was charged with the

goal of doing all of the computer graphics that you see

on a personal computer and so

that's several millions

of lines of code for instance we took Cairo as an

Cairo is the rendering system and composing

system that's used by Firefox so

it does most of the graphical tricks a few million lines of

code and turns out dan has a mother

and his mother as

high school geometry teacher and she asked him well what are you doing son

a few years ago and he told her and

they sat down didn't come back to work sat

down between Thanksgiving and Christmas and worked out a new way

of thinking about the involvement of arbitrary polygons

with pixels in

math and it looks like this

so this is the formula they came

up with so with that this is without any super

sampling or anything else like that you just execute do what that formula

says and it will give you the exact shading for

perfect anti-aliasing so

of course you can't run that formula so

the next thing he did was to make up a language

there was rather like this mathematical

language but which was executable so

you can think of this as a domain-specific language

although it's fairly general and

it has math in it it's stream-based

it's highly parallel

and so forth and these the 40

lines of math over here comes out to

be about 80 lines of runnable code now you can run

it

and you get

something like this so the

rendering part will render high quality

characters and simple shading and

and so forth like that so so that's 80 lines

of code and of course

there's more features and Dan also has

a brother and this brother is very

good at math also so he and Dan one summer made

up the 26 standard

compositing rules that are used in

Cairo and all of them together was

about 90 lines of code all right

because if you think about it if you don't worry about optimization

or anything else like that the mathematics

here in the right kind of language

it just falls out you're actually

down what a mathematician to write down is the actual relationships

and you get each one of these

things does a different compositing there's the rendering

stuff sampling for making pictures

pen stroking so

the total today is a little bit under 400 because

we added a few more features to it but

basically all of the graphics that were used

to in 2d on a personal computer

can be done in under 400 lines of code okay

that is a big difference compared to maybe

one or two millions of lines of code in Cairo like you

can look at all of it 400 lines of code is just a few

pages well as a hitch

and I'm going to end this talk with just

we get written the hitch of course is you have to make this language run

right so you don't want to spend three

year you'll come up with the perfect language and

then spend three years trying to get it run so you have to have

another language and

this is based out of a paper

from 1964 about how

to make the swirls

simplest compiler compiler done

by a guy at UCLA Val sharee

and we did a modern version

here's Alex Werth who did it and so

the parser for making

the graphics language is 130 lines of this language

which is called Omata and the

the optimizer

and the compiler to a language like C is

another seven hundred some-odd lines so that's what it takes

to make the graphics language so it's a little bit

larger but the nice thing about this compiler

compiler language is you use it for each of the domain-specific

languages that you're making things from and

of course you have to make that language but

what's nice about it it can make itself and it can make itself

in only 76 lines of code and it can optimize itself

in 30 lines of code so you get the idea here all

right so the idea here is that each problem space

has a particularly

felicitous point of view

point of view is worth a D IQ points if you find

point of view you're going to be able to write down the

relationships more or less directly

and that helps you think about the problem you're working on and

then if it's easy to make that domain-specific language

you just came up with run you're

in business because all of a sudden you've got a system

that's actually it's actually working so

I'm gonna so we're out of time

here and I think I'll leave you

with that I was gonna I think that's more than enough information

but this is I think one

the points here that's interesting is that this idea

is not only not new today that's

why they're called dsls today it's a

term we have today turns out this idea was in full

flower 50 years ago nobody

knows about it today because the terms change it

were called problem oriented languages 50 years ago POS

and for

a variety of reasons this whole technique of

making software systems very quickly and very

in small form got dropped

when the commercialization of personal computing

happened in the early 80s note it's not

taught as a as a major technique and very

few kids in the United States know that it's easy to make a

compiler compiler language that is much more general

and much easier to use than say yak so

you learn yak and you're convinced that it is

hard to make a language but in fact yak is bad

the actual techniques of making a

language or actually run much easier to do so

let me leave you with this idea

whatever it is that we think we know today

we should shut it off periodically and

see if we can find other things to learn about thank

Difference between revisions of "Alan Kay: Programming and Scaling"

Latest revision as of 21:58, 6 December 2017

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Tool box

Tools

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 |id=YyIQKBzIuBY
 |alignment=left
-|autoresize=false
+|autoresize=true
 }}
+<subtitle id="0:0:11">so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:14"> of course we never want to spend too  much time looking</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:17"> back especially when  talking to students</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:20"> because the world is  in front of you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:23"> but one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:26"> point I wanted  to make and this has always been</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:29"> true  and has never reflected adequately</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:32"> in  any rewards that a person might receive</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:35">  and that is that when</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:38"> good work gets  done it almost always gets done</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:41"> first in  a powerful research</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:44"> community of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:47"> very  friendly and very critical</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:50"> colleagues  who know how to argue</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:53"> the right way so  as you're looking</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:56"> ahead for yourself  finding</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:0:59"> these people in general is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:2">  critical and finding them in particular</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:5">is critical so these are just some of  the people that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:8"> have</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:11">associated with some of the work we've  been doing it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:14"> viewpoints Research  Institute</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:17"> and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:20"> very few awards actually</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:23">  are given to groups</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:26"> that this is a real  mistake in our field</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:29"> because I believe  in our field that you not only have</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:32"> ideas you have to get them  implemented and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:35"> it is often the case  that people</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:38"> with ideas are not so good  at implementing and so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:41"> you need to have  a kind of a team of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:44"> different kinds of  talents who are able to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:47"> work together</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:50">one little look-back though</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:53"> it could be  so I as we as the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:56"> term is meant today I  made up the term object-oriented</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:1:59">  programming but I made it up for  something</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:2"> different than the term stands  for today</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:5"> and what the term stands for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:8">  today this could be the 50th anniversary</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:11">  of it so that's quite surprising to  think it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:14">nineteen  61</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:17"> and it goes back to a very surprising</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:20">  form which is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:23"> actually a machine so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:26">there's no object-oriented programming  language in 1961</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:29"> that I'm aware of  I actually started</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:32"> in computing myself  in 1961</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:35"> so there was nothing like an  object-oriented programming</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:38">back then but there is a piece of  hardware that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:41"> can most easily be</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:44">  explained to you is that this was a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:47">  computer hardware that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:50"> executed a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:53"> set of  instructions that look like the byte</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:56">  coded VMs that you're familiar with from  Java</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:2:59">  in fact those byte coded VMs that Java</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:2">  have came originally because they were  the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:5"> basic instruction set on this  machine</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:8"> so this is one of the first  attempts</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:11"> at a building a higher-level  machine</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:14"> to reflect the idea in the early  60s that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:17"> we were going to program in  levels of language</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:20"> higher than C and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:23"> Bob  Barton here invented</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:26"> this machine and  sadly the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:29"> hardware of the day is not as  advanced as this machine</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:32"> was so for  those of you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:35"> who think we've been  engaged in steady progress</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:38"> in some form</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:41">  of Darwinian processes that are making</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:44">things better for us it's actually quite  the opposite quite</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:47"> the opposite in  history</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:50"> you can find really incredible</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:53">  geniuses like this man who anticipated</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:56">  so strongly that we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:3:59"> can only emulate his  ideas and software</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:2"> today intel hasn't  gotten around to understanding</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:5"> them yet  so this I find</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:8"> really quite sad on the  other hand it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:11"> gives you a sense of this  person</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:14"> and if you want to read an  interesting paper probably</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:17"> the shortest  greatest paper ever written</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:20"> in computer  science you can read this one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:23"> written in  1961 by Bob</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:26"> Barton  new approach to the functional design</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:29"> of  a digital computer it's only six pages  long</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:32"> and it lays out what</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:35"> a felicitous</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:38">  execution environment for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:41">language would be like and how it would  be realized in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:44"> a computer this computer  was built by</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:47"> the way it lived on longest  in Germany the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:50"> German banking system  loved it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:53"> because it was uncrashable why  was it uncrashable</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:56"> because it was the  first hardware or software system</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:4:59"> to  have what we call capabilities today</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:2"> an  application programmer simply could not</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:5">  write a program that could hurt any</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:8">  other program on the computer that was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:11">built directly into the into the  hardware of this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:14"> machine and the reason</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:17">  I'm showing you this just because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:20"> part  of it is everybody should understand the  history</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:23"> of our field if we were  physicists and we failed</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:26"> to understand  what Newton did we should be shot and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:29">  but in fact in computing we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:32"> are very  happy not to understand what most</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:35"> of the  founders of our field actually did so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:38"> I  always like to pick one of them in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:41"> the  generation before me and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:44"> explain what he  did but reason I brought it up</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:47"> here is  that I had a course</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:50"> from this guy this  guy was took</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:53"> a leave of absence from  borrows to come teach</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:56"> at the graduate  school I was at and in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:5:59"> this course which  was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:2"> about advanced systems design  instead of teaching</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:5"> this course he  handed out a list</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:8"> of all the papers we  should read he</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:11"> said there are a few  things known about advanced</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:14"> systems  design in 1966</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:17"> they're written down in  these papers and I expect you to read</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:20">every single one of these papers and  understand them and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:23"> then he said but it  is my job</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:26"> to firmly disabuse</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:29"> you of any  fondly held ideas</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:32"> you might have brought  into this classroom and translated</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:35"> into  less flowery English what he proposed</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:38"> to  do is to take all of our beliefs</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:41">  about computing and destroy them</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:44"> and  that is what this class was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:47"> the best  class I've ever had in a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:50"> university or  graduate school and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:53"> why was this a good  idea well</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:56"> we'll see in a second that the  biggest problem</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:6:59"> we have as human beings</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:2">  is that we confuse our beliefs with</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:5">  reality so we seem</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:8"> to live in a reality  here but actually it's a construction</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:11">  that we look at one way and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:14">another culture might look at it another  way and my</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:17"> little dog Watson might look  at this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:20"> whole thing from a completely  different point of view and when</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:23"> we  treat a construction as</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:26"> reality you are  actually binding the kinds of thoughts</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:29">that we can actually have and worse than  that we're picking a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:32"> tiny part of the  past that led to this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:35"> particular  construction as the only past</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:38"> we ever  drawn so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:41"> what this guy did is just  demolished everything that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:44"> we thought  including things that he actually  believed</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:47"> in so he demolished everything  no no</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:50"> proposition was safe</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:53"> and at the  end of it we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:56"> actually were free so we  could</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:7:59"> then learn computing from the  point</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:2"> of view of it being simply  opinions</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:5"> and a little bit</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:8">hat have been done so far up that way  but might</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:11"> not have anything particular  to do with</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:14"> a desirable future so here's  a paradigm</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:17"> that existed back then and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:20"> is  pretty much what we do today and I call  it the make</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:23"> and fix paradigm and it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:26">started off with data structures and  procedures they</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:29"> were like tinker toys  maybe a little bit like clocks</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:32"> we fit we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:35">  make gears we fit them together called</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:38">  api's they have to fit pretty closely</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:41">  for the thing to work and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:44"> that's pretty  much the only architecture we have and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:47">of course you can make a tic-tac-toe  computer</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:50"> out of tinker toy this is Danny  Hillis has a few</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:53">it  but like</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:56"> such things was once dismantled  to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:8:59"> be shipped to a museum and when they  put it back together</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:2"> and never worked  again and the reason</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:5"> was it was just  luck that all</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:8"> of these Tinkertoy  actually work because there was play  there</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:11"> there strings inside the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:14"> strings weren't the same length  anymore and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:17"> that reminds you of any  programs and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:20"> this is this murky thing is  actually Mexico</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:23"> City has anybody ever  been to Mexico City</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:26"> so it's 20 million  people</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:29"> couldn't be more smoggy</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:32"> and it's  kind of a mess</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:35"> and it's just the kind of  it's just a slightly</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:38"> more extreme  version of a lot of American cities</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:41">  where individuals</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:44"> have carpenters have</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:47">decided to do a house here or a house  there and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:50"> the problem is is that each</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:53">  individual little ant doing something</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:56">  has led to a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:9:59"> totality that is almost  unbearable</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:2"> and yet 20 million people are  forced to live in it and to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:5"> me this is  what software today is kind of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:8"> like it's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:11">  basically using almost the exact same  architectures</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:14"> as we're known 50</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:17"> years  ago because even</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:20"> the so called  object-oriented languages today have  lots</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:23"> of setters in the objects and when  you have a setter in an object</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:26">urned an object back into a data  structure and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:29"> so you get this huge</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:32">  amount of scaling of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:35"> complications but  you don't get a lot</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:38"> of bang for the buck</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:41">  it's not clear what to do with it but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:44">  what</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:50">yeah</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:53"> so if</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:56"> we look at software in terms  of lines</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:10:59"> of code for instance</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:2"> a one book</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:5">of software is about 20,000 lines of  code and a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:8"> foot of books is about I have</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:11">  it here a meter is about a million lines</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:14">  of code so if you stack up a meters  height</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:17"> high a book it's about only a  million lines of code</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:20"> okay so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:23"> if we look  at some software systems</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:26"> for instance  Vista has</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:29"> 120 million lines of code in  it so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:32"> that's a hundred and twenty meters  of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:35"> books to read and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:38"> six thousand books  and another</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:41"> 140 million for the apps  another seven thousand</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:44"> books so we're  talking thirteen thousand books</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:47"> for the  simplest part of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:50"> personal computing that  we're all used to anybody</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:53"> here read  thirteen thousand books</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:56"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:11:59"> anybody here  read one book</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:2"> okay just checking</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:5">so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:8"> there's a lot and I know a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:11"> big  software company whose</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:14"> name you might  have heard that has</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:17"> to deal with a live</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:20">  base of about 350 million lines of code  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:23"> as they say about 145,000</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:26"> screens so  screens</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:29"> is a term that was used a long  time ago for 3270</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:32"> terminals and so if  they call</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:35"> their user interface today  made out of screens it's probably that  they</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:38"> just adapted those old 3270</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:41"> screens  so this is about seventeen</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:44"> thousand five  hundred books worth of software</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:47"> nobody  in that company knows what it is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:50"> but  they have thousands and thousands of  people</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:53"> maintaining it so the question we  should be asking as</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:56"> computer scientists  first let alone engineers</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:12:59"> there's  computer scientists we should be asking</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:2">  is that how</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:5">rite  to get that much</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:8"> functionality or is  something</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:11"> wrong</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:14"> so one way of looking at  it is if your</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:17"> are two curves so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:20"> the  complication curve</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:23"> here I just put up</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:29">you know about a a factor</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:32"> of a hundred  this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:35"> and so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:38"> we could see that while we  like the complication curve to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:41"> run at  the same rate as the complexity curve it  actually</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:44"> is way ahead of the game so for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:47">  a certain level of complexity like say  in personal</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:50"> computing the actual  complication</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:53"> might be a factor of a  hundred or a factor of a thousand</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:56"> like  all</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:13:59"> but one tenth of one percent in the  Microsoft</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:2"> software suite might be  useless</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:5"> code code that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:8"> is there perhaps  for compatibility reasons code</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:11"> that they  don't dare take out</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:14"> in fact I know that  for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:17"> example if everybody here is  probably used Microsoft</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:20"> Word and it's  quite surprising that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:23"> Microsoft Word  when you have paragraph justification</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:26"> on  actually has selection</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:29"> errors to this  day if you ever had</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:32"> that happen got  justification on you click in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:35"> there and  you start typing and the type</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:38"> character  goes somewhere else that bug</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:41">there for more than twenty five years  it's been reported</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:44"> literally thirty or  forty thousand times and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:47"> they cannot  find the bug</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:50"> this is the most elementary</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:53">thing that you ever do in a word  processor is to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:56"> be able to select where  you want the character go</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:14:59"> they can't  find it and fact</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:2"> I've heard that part of  Microsoft words listing has</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:5">been lost they've had to recreate it  from</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:8"> from assembly code</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:11"> so that's kind  of a state of affairs that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:14"> we probably  should be thinking about</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:17">because when you start getting into  factors</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:20"> of a hundred and factors of a  thousand and factors of 10,000</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:23">actually talking about the difference  between somebody</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:26"> being able to  comprehend something and maybe</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:29"> not be  able to comprehend it at all</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:32"> so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:35"> if we go  back to our diagram here we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:38"> can pick up  some issues that we might care</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:41"> about now</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:44">say something about the communication  with aliens issue</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:47"> a little bit later  what that is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:50"> and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:53"> if we look in this  morass</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:56"> of stuff there's one interesting</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:15:59">  thing that isn't like this that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:2"> is huge  and yet it is tidy</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:5"> its level of  complication</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:8"> exactly balances its level</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:11">  of complexity and that's the Internet so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:14">it's worthwhile thinking about that that  even in a poorly</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:17"> done C program the  Internet is actually controlled</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:20">than twenty thousand lines of code  itself</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:23"> and that twenty thousand lines of  code can be written in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:26"> about a thousand  lines of code so tcp/ip is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:29"> a kind of a  universal DNA</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:32"> for an architecture of  billions</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:35"> of nodes in a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:38"> dynamic system  that has never been stopped</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:41"> has never  been stopped from when it first</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:44"> got  turned on in September 1969</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:47">  so replaced all of its atoms at</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:50"> least  once and has never been stopped</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:53"> it has  been changed</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:56"> it has been improved</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:16:59"> but in  fact it's an eternal system</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:2"> it is scaled  well and so forth and I'm</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:5"> not talking  about the web of course web is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:8"> a mess  but the internet was done by</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:11"> experts you  had a couple of those guys Vint Cerf and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:14">  Bob Kahn here at different times these</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:17">  guys knew what they were doing and boy</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:20">  when you look at this I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:23"> think why it is  why</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:26"> did the internet turn out so well  and why can't we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:29">that way because you could imagine  taking the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:32"> inner  as a model for doing software modules  why</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:35"> don't people do it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:38"> and it's the way  I look at</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:41"> it is a little</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:44"> jump of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:47">qualitative kind happen here and that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:50">jump is kind of a little jump from gear  type things to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:53"> biological type things</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:56">  and in fact those of us who had</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:17:59"> been  biologists contribute some pilot</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:2">biological ideas to the design of the  Internet  because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:5"> of course the Internet is one of  the few human</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:8"> artifacts that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:11"> we've made  that behaves like about like something</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:14">  that's alive in that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:17"> it repairs itself  while it is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:20"> still running it is able</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:23"> to  expand and grow and so forth and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:26"> so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:29"> we  can think of the Internet is in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:32"> it was  made but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:35"> it has some of these biological  ideas in it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:38"> so some of the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:41"> same kinds of  ideas for scaling</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:44"> were done in software  also around the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:47"> same time and some of  those were successful</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:50"> at Xerox PARC but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:53">  one of the problems</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:56"> of these</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:18:59"> some of  these semi new ideas here is when</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:2"> they  got translated into sea based forms</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:5"> in  order to be recognizable</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:8"> to people the  things</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:11"> that were like this old paradigm  were emphasized</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:14"> here so for example you  got this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:17"> really terrible idea of having  a so-called object-oriented</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:20"> system and  turning it back into data structures by  putting</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:23"> setters in which allow the very  same disastrous</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:26"> remote assignment</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:29">statements to to be done and turns the  system into</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:32"> a much more fragile way of  thinking about things</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:35"> but I think that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:38">  what's actually going on here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:41"> is that  there's a new way of thinking</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:44">things that represents  a brighter future</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:47"> for programming and if</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:50">  this is makin fix for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:53"> instance you can  fix a clock but you have to negotiate  with</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:56"> the system so at some point the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:19:59">systems are too complicated for a human  being to go into too many</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:2"> feedback loops  too many self regulatory</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:5"> systems and  stuff and you wind up at</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:8"> best  negotiating with the system now the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:11">  stuff we're doing in here so far is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:14"> in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:17">  between we built</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:20"> it by hand but we made  a system</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:23"> as we've made up many other  systems</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:26"> in software but we haven't made  the systems capable</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:29"> enough to be able to  be negotiated</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:32"> with so I just want to  have you think</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:35"> of it in your head of  what it would be like if you're</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:38"> doing a  software system in some new form</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:41"> of  development</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:44"> interactive development kit</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:47">  what would that software system actually  do</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:50"> besides just doing what you asked it  to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:53"> do could it for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:56"> instance participate  in readapting</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:20:59"> the software for future  needs about</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:2"> 80% of the cost of all</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:5">  software that is deployed in industry</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:8">  comes after the software</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:11"> has been  successfully put out the first time</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:14"> so  the life cycle changes</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:17"> that are required  of the software and the integration and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:20">reintegration  actually dominate</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:23"> all the costs of  software but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:26"> because of the way  companies have</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:29"> to report their earnings  and their expenses</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:32"> companies cannot  charge</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:35"> upfront for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:38"> all of the stuff that  you really need</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:41"> to do to software to  allow it to be changed downstream so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:44">what they tend to pay for is just enough  money to make the thing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:47"> run to its  original specs and hardly any money to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:50">  be able to fix it up later because they  just amortize</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:53"> those costs of the future  and the costs are enormous</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:56">o</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:21:59"> if we take the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:2"> internet as one area  and then a slightly</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:5"> more advanced way of  thinking about things is that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:8"> once we  start thinking in biological terms</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:11"> we  also are thinking about Ecology's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:14"> and I  hope many</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:17"> of you have thought enough  about the Internet to realize that there</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:20">  are levels of communication protocols</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:23">  that could be put on top of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:26"> tcp/ip</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:29"> for  example interoperation protocols</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:32"> that  could eliminate the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:35"> dependence on  specific operating systems</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:38"> and I hope to  get to that in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:41"> a few minutes  okay</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:44"> way down the road</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:47"> what</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:50"> is actually  being put together is something</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:53"> that is  going to have to be discussed in  psychological</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:56"> or mental terms because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:22:59">  the if this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:2"> is manipulation</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:5"> up there  just wanted to make a little comment  about</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:8"> biology because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:11"> sometimes</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:14"> if we  study computers we don't learn</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:17"> other  things</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:20"> so we can I'm going to read this  diagram both</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:23"> way so at the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:26"> inch scale</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:29">now there's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:32"> what twenty five</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:35"> thousand  Mike</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:38"> twenty five thousand four hundred</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:41">  microns per inch and a ecoli</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:44"> is about  two microns long so it's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:47"> about 13,000  microns</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:50"> per inch a little over ten  thousand per</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:53"> per centimeter</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:56"> and so if we  blow it up by</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:23:59"> eighty thousand we get to  see this and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:2"> of course it's very active  so we wouldn't</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:5"> see this we would see a  blur and if</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:8"> we take the next section up  there</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:11">we get something that looks like this  where we see a bunch of large molecules</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:14">  we take a section of that so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:17"> we're now a  magnification of about 10</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:20"> million we see  a medium-sized molecule</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:23"> has about five  thousand atoms in it and these are  actually</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:26"> water atoms so if you like  books</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:29"> like this it's called the  machinery light of life</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:32"> by David  Goodsell this is a molecular</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:35"> biologist  who likes to paint and he</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:38"> realized that  doing watercolors of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:41"> what is actually  going on there could be more clear than</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:44">  computer graphics or anyway this is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:47">marvelous book for getting an idea so  these are individual water molecules  these</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:50"> are calcium ions 5,000</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:53"> atoms or so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:56">  and if</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:24:59"> you see the size of this thing  compared to it in there</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:2"> and see it in  the size of the larger thing they're</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:5">  about 120 million molecules</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:8"> that are not  water in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:11"> a single living thing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:14"> so one of  the things to think about in computer</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:17">  terms is the scale jump from the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:20">lower level of architecture which is  polymers like</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:23"> proteins chains of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:26"> atoms  to make</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:29"> long molecules the scale jump to  what what</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:32"> it needs to do to make a  living thing is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:35"> incredible compared to  the scale jump we do when we try</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:38"> to make  objects and I think one of the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:41"> mistakes  we made years ago was to make objects  too</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:44"> small and we missed</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:47"> this idea that  you might get a lot more out of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:50"> making a  much more capable more universal</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:53"> object  and try to build things in terms of that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:56">  and just for comparison</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:25:59"> there are just  slightly fewer tinker toys</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:2"> in Danny  Hillis tinker toy</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:5"> tic-tac-toe playing  computer as</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:8"> there are in one of these  proteins so so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:11"> a protein you could  imagine assembling by hand but you could  not imagine assembling</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:14"> a bacterium by  hand</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:17">  okay got aggro on</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:20">  okay</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:23"> so here's a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:26"> piece of context that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:29"> I  always like to ask students about</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:32"> so  here's an interesting thing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:35"> about all of  us is pretty</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:38"> much from the time we were  born every</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:41"> person in this room was  praised for being bright</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:44"> right</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:47">  we just talked up a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:50"> storm and we were  interested in this and we were so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:53"> clever  and we were encouraged most</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:56"> of the time  to be clever</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:26:59"> it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:2"> seems like a good thing  and maybe it is because here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:5"> we are but  imagine</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:8"> being born with twice the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:11">  intellectual capacity of Leonardo</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:14">  smarter than any of us no</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:17"> question twice  the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:20"> intellectual capacity of Leonardo  but in 10,000</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:23"> BC how</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:26"> far are you going  to get how</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:29"> far did Leonardo get Leonardo  could not invent a single</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:32"> engine for any  of his vehicles think about that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:35"> maybe  the smartest person of his time but he's  born in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:38"> the wrong time his IQ could not  transcend</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:44">so IQ is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:47"> really not worth that much  because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:50"> talking about vehicles here's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:53">  Henry Ford nowhere</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:56"> near Leonardo but he  happened to be born in the right century</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:27:59">  century in which people had already done</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:2">a lot of work in making mechanical  things and so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:5"> it was Duck Soup to make a  car that worked and sell</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:8"> millions of  them for four hundred and seventy five</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:11">  dollars apiece and of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:14"> course we have  Daimler and Benz here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:17"> in Germany so  basically when you born at</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:20"> the right  time a whole bunch of things are open to  you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:23">  so knowledge in many</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:26"> many cases just  Trump's IQ</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:29">I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:32"> and this is because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:35"> there are certain  special people who invent new</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:38"> ways of  looking at things so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:41"> Ford was powerful  because Isaac</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:44"> Newton changed the way new  with the way Europe thought</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:47"> about things  so he changed</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:50"> an entire way of things  and it's one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:53"> of the wonderful things  about the way knowledge works if you can  get a supreme</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:56"> genius to invent calculus  those</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:28:59"> of us with more normal IQs can  learn it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:2"> so we're not shut out from</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:5"> what  the genius does we just can't</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:8">calculus by ourselves but once one of  these guys turns</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:11"> things around the  knowledge</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:14"> of the era changes completely  this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:17"> is why in the United States at  least computer science</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:20"> is almost dead  because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:23"> of course I would get a lot of  argument about that because there are</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:26">  many people there but the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:29"> outlook there  has gotten pretty weak</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:32"> and so the way I  think of it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:35"> is the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:38"> outlook at you have  on something is what is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:41"> going to give  you those extra IQ points but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:44">have a really powerful outlook the  knowledge you'll gather</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:47"> will be powerful  and then if you have some extra</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:50"> brights  if you happen to be clever</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:53"> when you have  those first couple of things then</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:56"> you  can be very powerful</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:29:59"> so I think of  knowledge</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:2"> as silver and outlook as gold</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:5">  and IQ is kind of a lead weight</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:8"> this is  killing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:11"> computer science because a lot  of people in computing don't</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:14"> bother  learning anything because it's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:17"> not that  difficult to learn how to program badly</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:20">  right and you can be clever and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:23"> write a  program in JavaScript to do lots of  different</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:26"> kinds of things the problem is  you there's no</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:29"> place to go with it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:35">so when I look at our field today</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:38"> from  this 50-year perspective</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:41"> well</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:44"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:47"> looking  back I would</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:50"> say the absolute number of  four</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:53"> four and five Sigma IQs is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:56"> actually  has actually increased</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:30:59"> so if we were to  take all</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:2"> of the people in our field  vastly</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:5"> more and look at the superbright  there's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:8"> just more than there were 40 50  years ago</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:11"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:14"> but the relative number is  much</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:17"> worse because the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:20"> total number is  increased tremendously and the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:23">number of the superbright is not  increased commensurately</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:26"> and so there's  an enormous amount of noise</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:29"> from the  middle today in the field</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:32"> an enormous  number of artifacts from them</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:35"> similarly  there's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:38"> a lot more knowledge of computer  science today than there was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:41"> 40 50 years  ago</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:44"> but the general knowledge of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:47">the practitioners has only increased a  little bit the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:50"> level the small size</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:53"> of  this increase is almost staggering</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:56"> given  what</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:31:59"> there is to know that has been  written</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:2"> down in various places and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:5"> then  the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:8"> number of outlooks that are powerful</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:11">  has gone way up</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:14"> over those years and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:17"> but  the general outlook is hardly more  powerful</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:20"> than it was I'm talking about  programming here this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:23"> is quite static so  something</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:26"> something is going on that  reminds me a lot of pop music</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:29"> right  there if</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:32"> you sit down and learn music  there and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:35"> look back over the last six  centuries and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:38"> it's just some of the most  incredible</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:41"> talking just about classical  music I'm talking</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:44"> about jazz any kind of  develop music it  just</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:47"> amazing the riches that are there</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:50">  yet pop music uses 1/100</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:53"> of 1% of that  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:56"> so I think what what's happened is  computing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:32:59"> has turned into a pop culture  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:2"> the universities are not helping</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:5"> in  general at least in the u.s.</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:8"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:11"> so Cicero  anybody</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:14"> know a good quote about Cicero  having to do with</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:17"> present and past let's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:20">  check out your classical education here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:23">  so you know who Cicero was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:26"> he was one of  those old Roman guys</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:29"> so Cicero once  wrote</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:32"> he who knows only his own  generation remains</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:35"> forever a child</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:38">and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:41"> basically what McLuhan</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:44"> is saying  here is we tend to be trapped</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:47"> in a  single conception of the present</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:50">makes it hard for us to see it in any  terms except</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:53"> the terms that led up to  the present that we're in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:56"> and he said  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:33:59"> that means it's hard to conceive of  a future that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:2"> is an incremental on the  present makes</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:5"> sense right the president  is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:8"> overwhelming to us and there are all  these little things that we can do</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:11"> a  little bit better on it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:14"> that gives us a  kind of a model that's like this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:17"> so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:20">  here's some rain falling outside making</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:23">  a little gully by random</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:26"> and it happens  that a gully by random</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:29"> just happens to  be more efficient</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:32"> at making the gully  bigger so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:35"> if you just let that go on for  a bit you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:38"> get these guys there's no</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:41">  reason for where these are just some</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:44">  random rain disturbing some things</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:47"> there  but once it got set up it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:50"> got interested  in itself just</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:53"> like our brains do so  this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:56"> is not a bad model of the way human  memory</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:34:59"> works  we start learning something it was very  hard</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:2"> for us to see what else is going on  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:5"> so there's this famous picture of  Conrad</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:8"> Lorentz who discovered that the  first thing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:11"> a duckling saw when it came  out of the egg it thought was his mother</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:14">  and so if Lawrence</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:17"> arranged it so he was  the first thing they saw so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:20"> the little  ducks would follow him around and when  he</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:23"> went out swimming they'd follow him  around and so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:26"> I think that's the way  people often approach well</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:29"> your first  programming language right</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:32"> so probably  the most disastrous thing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:35">learn is your first programming language  even if it's a good programming</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:38"> language  and the reason is is it's tends</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:41"> to  become computing and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:44"> so it might be a  better idea to learn two or three</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:47">programming languages at the same time  even though that's a different</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:50"> kind of  struggle but at least relativize</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:53"> what  people think  computing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:56"> might be so we got this  present</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:35:59"> it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:2"> comes out of one set of  things in the past that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:5"> we're daily  aware of it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:8"> gives rise to an incremental  future this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:11"> is a lot like academic paper  writing in the US</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:14"> I don't know whether  you have to do it here but so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:17"> almost all  the papers written in in the US and  computing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:20"> academia are counted so the  University</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:23"> of California counts all  papers written by</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:26"> academics they don't  care whether the papers are good or bad  they</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:29"> don't care whether a professor</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:32"> has  a really great idea every five years  they</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:35"> do care if the professor writes 10</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:38">  or 15 or 20 papers each year</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:41"> and the  same with graduate</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:44"> students because  graduate students are taught to follow  in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:47"> this mold and often the professor has  his name on that very same paper</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:50"> the  graduate student in increases his count</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:53">  so there are a lot of factors here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:56"> but  the truth is that the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:36:59"> past is vast</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:2">enormous  there are billions</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:5"> of people  contributing to the past and every</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:8"> time  we think the present is real we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:11"> actually  cannot see the rest of the past</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:14">so we have to destroy the present</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:17"> one of  the ways of doing it is to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:20"> try spend a  little time each day trying</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:23"> to think of  what you take as reality as</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:26"> being just a  result of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:29"> that rain falling on the  ground and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:32"> being intensified</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:35"> get rid of  it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:38">  once you get rid of it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:41"> it's a scary  situation</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:44"> because you've said I'm not  going to have anything based</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:47"> on the  course that's not possible you're</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:50"> just  trying but sometimes you get</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:53"> a little  feeling this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:56"> is not an idea it's just a  feeling</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:37:59"> it's like</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:2"> an odor of perfume</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:5"> but  the fun thing is that little feeling can</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:8">  actually lead you to look in the past in  different</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:11"> places then</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:14"> you would normally  do and you can bring those up</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:17"> to that  feeling and once</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:20"> you do that that  feeling starts</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:23"> expanding into a vision  and the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:26"> vision expands into an actual  idea</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:29"> so this is one way of doing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:32"> it and  some of the most creative people I know  actually</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:35"> operate this way this is where  these ideas come</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:38"> from that are not just  incremental to the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:41"> present they come out  of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:44"> vague even muscular sensations</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:47"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:50"> that  you have to go chasing to try</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:53">out what they are you try and get the  idea too early it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:56"> can only be in terms  of the present</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:38:59"> what we do</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:2">  so everything that human humans</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:5"> make is  technically technology</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:8"> so I'm going to  and we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:11"> have a different meaning for  technology so I'm going to change the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:14">  Greek root of technology is technique</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:17">  technique means whatever human make</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:20">  humans make don't let's call it the arts</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:23">and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:26"> in the arts we have tinkering I'm</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:29">  going to do these in historical order so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:32">mammals are creatures who tinker  especially</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:35"> primates especially us and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:38">  engineering is a kind of principle</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:41">  tinkering so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:44"> it came before math and  science</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:47"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:50"> what does it mean by principles</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:53">if you don't have math and science well  if you build a building</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:56"> and it falls  down you just build it with twice the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:39:59">cross-sections of all the beams you  don't need any math and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:2">if it doesn't fall down you write it  down in a book and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:5"> you wind up with this  big cookbook that by</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:8"> the way is the way  Babylonians did math the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:11"> Greeks hated  long books of things like that that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:14"> led  them to invent the company math we use  today</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:17"> that came next</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:20"> science as we know  it today came</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:23"> about 400 years ago so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:26">  anybody here know how</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:29"> long our strain of  humans has been on the planet</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:32"> how</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:35"> long  have we been here this is it's kind</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:38"> of  important isn't it for context</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:41"> so you  know about so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:44"> it happens that we inherit  more from our mother</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:47"> than our Father  because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:50"> mitochondria and its</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:53"> DNA don't  fit into sperm but they do fit into OVA</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:56">  and so when</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:40:59"> we got a fertilized egg we  cannot only get the union of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:2"> the two  nuclear DNA s</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:5"> but we also get the female  mitochondrial</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:8"> DNA and mitochondria are a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:11">little bacteria that were captured a  long time ago</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:14"> to help with energy  production in cells they were originally  separate</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:17"> organisms so it turns out you  can actually</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:20"> run computer simulations</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:23"> on  the amount of change in the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:26"> female line  of humanity should</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:29"> do this sometime  because it's kind of interesting and it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:32">  turns out that if you run it back we  were all defendi</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:35"> descended from one  female</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:38">now of course there are other females  around back then but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:41"> that female lived  192 thousand</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:44"> years ago so our particular  strain</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:47"> of humanity has been here but for  about 192 thousand</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:50">that  we only invented science</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:53"> 400 years ago</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:56">  that's how dumb we are think</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:41:59"> about it  that's why IQ doesn't count</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:2"> we never  were smart enough to invent science</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:5"> we  blundered around</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:8"> amusing ourselves with  stories for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:11"> hundreds of thousands of  years so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:14"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:17"> almost everybody in these  fields winds</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:20"> up doing a combination of  them and you kind of want to be in the  sweet</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:23"> spot you want to do a little  tinkering a little engineering</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:26"> a little  math a little science and really</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:29">difference between the fields is more of  temperament than the kinds</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:32"> of things  that you learn some people are idealist</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:35">  some are pragmatists</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:38"> now if we look at  computing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:44">it's mostly tinkering a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:47"> little bit of  engineering</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:50"> maybe a little math hardly  any science</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:53"> and when we say engineering</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:56">  we don't mean real engineering real</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:42:59">  engineering uni Empire State Building in  New</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:2"> York was built in less than a year  by less than three thousand people</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:5">  including dem Demmel it demolishing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:8"> the  original site and occupancy</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:11"> so it's  built at the rate of two stories a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:14"> day  the steel was still</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:17"> 110 degrees 40  degrees centigrade when</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:20"> it came from the  factories in Pittsburgh</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:23"> to make the  Empire State Building</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:26">  that's Engineering so whatever it is we  do is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:29"> like maybe what Egyptians did  making</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:32"> pyramids piling things on top of  each other but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:35"> in computing we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:38"> could not  organize 3,000 people to do a major</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:41">  thing in less than a year right</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:44"> have you  ever heard of it ever</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:47"> No so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:50">the word engineering seriously and I do  I</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:53"> don't mean it as a metaphor I'm</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:56"> saying  engineering let's not do away with</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:43:59">engineering has meant the last three or  four thousand years we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:2"> take that word  seriously we haven't got it yet in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:5">  software we really</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:8"> don't know how to do  it okay</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:11"> so this is my favorite hairball</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:14">  it's actually from</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:17"> a woolly mammoth so  that's a big</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:20"> hairball I'm</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:23"> gonna get rid  of it because but you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:26">something complicated I'm going to  replace it with stars because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:29">nicer to look at but if you think of  we're given</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:32"> this phenomena that's the  basic</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:35"> thing it could be a hairball it  could be they're</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:38">hairballs and what we want to do is make  sense of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:41"> it in science and we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:44"> have  language which is computer</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:47"> scientists  you know can all be made out</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:50"> of the  operation NAND or nor which</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:53">invented by a guy by the name of Charles  purse in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:56"> the 19th century  so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:44:59"> we can make all things having to do  with language out</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:2"> of that one operation  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:5"> what we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:8"> want to do is to come up  with something in language</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:11"> that closely  mimics mimics the phenomena</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:14"> that we're  interested in and forget in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:17"> fact because  of the limitations of our brain that's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:20">about as far as we can go because the  brain contains</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:23"> various kinds of  languages that does not contain stars  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:26"> so we're interested in the  relationships</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:29"> between those so the  reason</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:32"> I'm explaining this is because  when I ask graduate</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:35">United States what is their meaning of  computer science</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:38"> they always give me an  engineering definition which implies</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:41">that they have no idea what the word  science actually means this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:44"> is what it  means</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:47"> but science</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:50"> doesn't care whether  nature made it or whether</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:53"> humans made it  so we can take a bridge do</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:56"> exactly the  same thing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:45:59"> make a t-shirt explains</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:2"> how  this bridge works and what's cool about  engineering</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:5"> is once you make that  t-shirt you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:8"> can make another bridge get</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:11">hose engineers to make more interesting  bridge for a scientist</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:14"> to look at and  you can take</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:17"> this rather far those are</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:20">  my favorite bridge in Japan longest</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:23">  suspension bridge in the world and to  give</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:26"> you an idea of how big it is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:29">there's the Great Pyramid of Egypt and  the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:32"> Empire State Building next to it so  it its towers</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:35"> are actually the size of  the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:38"> greatest building created in the  early 30s</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:41"> this is some kind of bridge</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:44">makes</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:47"> you feel good to be an engineer at  least it makes me</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:50"> feel good because I  this is you know the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:53"> ability to really  make engineering and science</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:46:56"> harmonize  with each other there's no greater</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:2"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:5">so computing we've</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:8"> got computers we got  software here's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:11"> John McCarthy he</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:14">the abstraction of all that stuff on a  t-shirt that's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:17"> the Lisp interpreter in  itself one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:20"> of my favorite things for  more than 50 years</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:23"> ago 1958</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:26"> if you don't  have</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:29"> a little tear in your eye when you  look at that you're missing something</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:32">  really really important about our field  this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:35"> is like one of the greatest things  that has ever done because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:38"> the same  thing with the bridge once somebody does  that</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:41"> man you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:44"> can start inventing things  that are much more</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:47"> you can invent  computer things that are like</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:50"> like  living things and make</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:53"> Internet's and so  forth so this is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:56"> really cool stuff and  you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:47:59"> can also look at personal computing  and ask</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:2"> how many t-shirts we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:5">Empire State Building worth of code from  Microsoft</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:8"> but we should ask how many  t-shirts does it really take</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:11"> and so one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:14">of the things that we've done in our  approach is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:17"> finding that problem  difficult</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:20"> it's really hard</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:23">thing through because geez  we</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:26"> murse tin this stuff it looks large  it's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:29"> complicated so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:32"> what you can do is  make</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:35"> a little Frankenstein's monster of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:38">  a system it isn't</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:41"> the one you actually  want exactly but it's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:44"> kind of cute and  it's kind of scary and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:47"> if it's also kind  of small then</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:50"> you've actually made the  thing that will allow you to think</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:53"> about  this other</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:56"> guy</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:48:59"> and Olay enable you to  make a baby step</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:2"> towards capturing  millions</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:5"> of lines of code in a few</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:8"> tens  of thousands of lines of code</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:11">that's one of the things we've been  doing so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:14"> my website the website of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:17">viewpoints  search Institute is Vpr</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:20"> i.org  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:23"> there you will read</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:26"> more about this  project and I'll just show you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:29"> one  example here</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:32"> from a bunch of principles</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:35">  one will be the math wins one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:38"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:41"> tiny Model  T</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:44"> t-shirt programming and a little bit  of particles</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:47"> and fields so this is one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:50">  of our colleagues dan amma lang and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:53"> he  was charged with the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:56"> goal of doing all  of the computer graphics that you see</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:49:59"> on  a personal computer and so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:2"></subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:5"> that's  several millions</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:8"> of lines of code for  instance we took Cairo as an</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:11">Cairo is the rendering system and  composing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:14"> system that's used by Firefox  so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:17"> it does most of the graphical tricks  a few million lines of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:20"> code and turns  out dan has a mother</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:23"> and his mother as</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:26">high school geometry teacher and she  asked him well what are you doing son</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:29"> a  few years ago and he told her and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:32"> they  sat down didn't come back to work sat</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:35">down between Thanksgiving and Christmas  and worked out a new way</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:38"> of thinking  about the involvement of arbitrary  polygons</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:41"> with pixels in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:44"> math and it  looks like this</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:47"> so this is the formula  they came</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:50"> up with so with that this is  without any super</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:53"> sampling or anything  else like that you just execute do what  that formula</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:56"> says and it will give you  the exact shading for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:50:59"> perfect  anti-aliasing so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:2"> of course you can't run  that formula so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:5"> the next thing he did  was to make up a language</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:8"> there was  rather like this mathematical</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:11"> language  but which was executable so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:14"> you can  think of this as a domain-specific  language</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:17"> although it's fairly general  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:20"> it has math in it it's stream-based</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:23">  it's highly parallel</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:26"> and so forth and  these the 40</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:29"> lines of math over here  comes out to</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:32"> be about 80 lines of  runnable code now you can run</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:35"> it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:38"> and you  get</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:41"> something like this  so the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:44"> rendering part will render high  quality</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:47"> characters and simple shading  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:50"> and so forth like that so so that's  80 lines</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:53"> of code and of course</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:56"> there's  more features and Dan also has</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:51:59"> a brother  and this brother is very</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:2"> good at math  also so he and Dan one summer made</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:5"> up  the 26 standard</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:8"> compositing rules that  are used in</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:11"> Cairo and all of them  together was</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:14"> about 90 lines of code all  right</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:17"> because if you think about it if  you don't worry about optimization</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:20"> or  anything else like that the mathematics</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:23">  here in the right kind of language</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:26"> it  just falls out you're actually</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:29">down what a mathematician to write down  is the actual relationships</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:32"> and you get  each one of these</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:35"> things does a  different compositing there's the  rendering</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:38"> stuff sampling for making  pictures</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:41"> pen stroking so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:44"> the total today  is a little bit under 400 because</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:47"> we  added a few more features to it but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:50">  basically all of the graphics that were  used</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:53"> to in 2d on a personal computer</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:56"> can  be done in under 400 lines of code okay</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:52:59">  that is a big difference compared to  maybe</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:2"> one or two millions of lines of  code in Cairo like you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:5"> can look at all  of it 400 lines of code is just a few</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:8">  pages well as a hitch</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:11"> and I'm going to  end this talk with just</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:14">we get written the hitch of course is  you have to make this language run</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:17"> right  so you don't want to spend three</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:20"> year  you'll come up with the perfect language  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:23"> then spend three years trying to get  it run so you have to have</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:26"> another  language and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:29"> this is based out of a  paper</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:32"> from 1964 about how</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:35"> to make the  swirls</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:38"> simplest compiler compiler done</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:41">  by a guy at UCLA Val sharee</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:44">  and we did a modern version</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:47">here's Alex Werth who did it  and so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:50"> the parser for making</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:53"> the  graphics language is 130 lines of this  language</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:56"> which is called Omata  and the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:53:59"> the optimizer</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:2"> and the compiler  to a language like C is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:5"> another seven  hundred some-odd lines so that's what it  takes</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:8"> to make the graphics language so  it's a little bit</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:11"> larger but the nice  thing about this compiler</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:14"> compiler  language is you use it for each of the  domain-specific</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:17"> languages that you're  making things from and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:20"> of course you  have to make that language but</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:23"> what's  nice about it it can make itself and it  can make itself</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:26"> in only 76 lines of code  and it can optimize itself</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:29"> in 30 lines  of code so you get the idea here all</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:32">right so the idea here is that each  problem space</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:35"> has a particularly</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:38">  felicitous point of view</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:41"> point of view  is worth a D IQ points if you find</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:44">point of view you're going to be able to  write down the</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:47"> relationships more or  less directly</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:50"> and that helps you think  about the problem you're working on and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:53">then if it's easy to make that  domain-specific language</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:56"> you just came  up with run you're</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:54:59"> in business because  all of a sudden you've got a system</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:2">  that's actually it's actually working so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:5">  I'm gonna so we're out of time</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:8"> here and  I think I'll leave you</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:11"> with that I was  gonna I think that's more than enough  information</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:14"> but this is I think one</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:17">the points here that's interesting is  that this idea</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:20"> is not only not new today  that's</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:23"> why they're called dsls today  it's a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:26"> term we have today  turns out this idea was in full</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:29"> flower  50 years ago nobody</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:32"> knows about it today  because the terms change it</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:35">were called problem oriented languages  50 years ago POS</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:38"> and for</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:41"> a variety of  reasons this whole technique of</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:44"> making  software systems very quickly and very</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:47">  in small form got dropped</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:50"> when the  commercialization of personal computing</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:53">  happened in the early 80s note it's not</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:56">  taught as a as a major technique  and very</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:55:59"> few kids in the United States  know that it's easy to make a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:2"> compiler  compiler language that is much more  general</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:5"> and much easier to use than say  yak so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:8"> you learn yak and you're  convinced that it is</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:11"> hard to make a  language but in fact yak is bad</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:14"> the  actual techniques of making a</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:17"> language  or actually run much easier to do so</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:20"> let  me leave you with this idea</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:23">whatever it is that we think we know  today</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:26"> we should shut it off periodically  and</subtitle>
+<subtitle id="0:56:29"> see if we can find other things to  learn about thank</subtitle>