Wednesday, April 4, 2012

High Level Logic and Constructal Law

Visit the High Level Logic (HLL) Website
— Home of XPL (eXtensible Process Language)

It's like XML, but you can store source code in it.

I've just finished reading chapter 1 of Design in Nature, by Adrian Bejan and J. Peder Zane. (How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organizations) It has me wondering if constructal law will turn out to be the thing that will help me explain why HLL is a superior software framework.

Constructal law sees “design in nature” in terms evolving flow structures. From an author's description; “Constructal theory holds that flow architecture arises from the natural evolutionary tendency to generate greater flow access in time and in flow configurations that are free to morph.”

As mentioned, I've just finished chapter 1 of Design in Nature. I'm not ready yet to produce a proof, based on constructal law, that HLL is an advancement, and a fundamental advancement as I believe that it is. But even the concept, as explained, with examples, in the introductory chapter, raises some question whether it should be possible.

It's at least largely about flow. HLL is about logical flow, and designing (or evolving) “generic” (more accurately, “general” or “vastly reusable”) flows for high level logic. That might almost be said of any computer software; except for the “generic” or “general” or “vastly reusable” systematic flow of high level logic. Yes, as I said – not a proof yet.

I'm pushed along a bit by the experience of it all. It's not just about flow, but flow has always been on my mind as a critical aspect of HLL development; every piece of it; every aspect of it.

Recalling my early (mid 1980s) notes on HLL, I was very concerned about finding a more generic structure or container for passing data around. This is part of what, predictably, evolved in computer science while I was busy doing other things. Few understood my excitement over XML or my comments on the broad possible uses of RDF (having actually studied the standard rather than just fingering through an early example).

Fair enough (I hope you think), but the fact that these things evolved without HLL mean that other people were interested too. All I'm saying is that these developments were seriously stokin' my pipe for yet another set of dreams about how software development was and will evolve. One could produce “tree structures” for data that could morph. It seemed quite profound to me, not just convenient.

Because I'm not ready to prove anything yet and expect to discuss this further in the future, I'll be brief; taking you right to the latest. I did not feel that I could create the HLL system properly until WebSockets came along. Browsers are everywhere and that's why they should serve as the interface for applications. I need that symmetry of flow that WebSockets finally provide.

HLL isn't as restrictive as frameworks I've seen, not nearly as specialized. It should be free to express any application, rather easily.

What I've said at this point, is that I'm ready to see HLL in terms of flow architecture that arises from the natural evolutionary tendency to generate greater flow access in time and in flow configurations that are free to morph.

So, my pipe is back to producing dreams and we'll see what becomes of them.

No comments:

Post a Comment