Skip to main content

Algorithms versus Architecture

I was trying to explain to someone the other day what I did; he was in BioInformatics. It occurred to me that there was a dimension in computer science that I had not been able to articulate properly before: algorithms and architectures.

Some people who call themselves Computer Scientists of one flavor or another focus on solving what seem to be basically algorithms. For example, getting the right image processing algorithm or credit scoring algorithm. On the other hand, others who also call themselves Computer Scientists focus less on the algorithms but on the organization of the computer system. For example, ensuring that the image processing can actually be used effectively in a user's context.

I have noticed a tendency for people to clump themselves into either the algorithm class or the architecture class. I personally gravitate to the latter. I have also noticed a tendency for algorithmists (sic) to discount the contribution and relevance of the work of the architects -- and vice versa. It shows up as “I've solved the problem with this cool algorithm” on the one hand and “Apply that function here” on the other hand.

Of course, both are important. It does happen that many of the hard architecture problems are in arenas where the algorithms themselves are trivial (adding up a column of numbers anyone). Similarly, the UI for a video player is also pretty simple, even if the playback algorithm itself is not.

In the world of Service Oriented Architecture, with action at a distance to be supported in a safe and effective way, we have a situation where we need both world-class algorithms (e.g., to correctly infer the consistency of a purchase order with a vendor's Ontology) and world-class architectures (e.g., to ensure that we can actually place those orders in a reliable, safe and effective way).

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea: Comments should be meaningless What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least). Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning because the programming language cannot So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer. I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous. So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment. Hence the title of this blog.

Another thought about Turing and Brooks

Rodney Brooks once wrote that robots would be human when treating them as though they were human was the most efficient way of interacting with them. (Not a precise quote.) This is an interesting variation on the Turing test. It assumes that we decide the smartness of machines in the context of frequent interactions with them. It also builds on an interesting idea: that in order to deal with another entity, be it human, animal or mineral, we naturally build an internal model of the entity: how it behaves, what it can do, how it is likely to react to stimuli etc. That model exists for all entities that we interact with; a rock is not likely to kick you back, your word processor will likely crash before you can save the document etc. When the most effective way to predict the behavior of a machine is to assume that it has similar internal structure to ourselves, then it will, for all intents and purposes, be human. So, here is another thought: how do we know that another human is human?

What is an Ontology for?

I am sure that everyone who has ever dabbled in the area of Ontology has been asked that question. Personally, I have never heard a truly convincing response; even though I strongly feel that Ontologies are quite important. I recently listened to a radio segment in which someone in Algeria (I think) was complaining about the new law that required all teaching to be done in Arabic. It seems that most university-level education is in French, and that many parents try to send their kids to schools that teach in French. The issue was that Arabic simply does not have the vocabulary demanded by a modern high-tech education. Arabic is not alone in this dilemma: French itself is littered with Les mots Anglais; and English is a true hodge-podge of Anglo-Saxon, French, German, Hindu, Japanese, and many other languages. It often happens that when a culture acquires a set of concepts, it does so in the language of the originators of those concepts. It is often considerably easier to import wholes