Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!newspump.sol.net!news.inc.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.be.innet.net!INbe.net!news.nl.innet.net!INnl.net!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!psgrain!qiclab.scn.rain.com!gemstone.com!servio!servio!aland
From: aland@servio.slc.com (Alan Darlington)
Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. static type checking
Message-ID: <1996Jul22.185614.27967@gemstone.com>
Sender: news@gemstone.com (USENET News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: servio
Organization: GemStone Systems, Inc., Beaverton OR, USA
References: <31EBF27C.5B41@tesseract.com> <Dur50I.3pz@world.std.com> <4sms20$27f4@mule0.mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 18:56:14 GMT
Lines: 17
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.smalltalk:41163 comp.lang.c++:201594 comp.lang.java:70309 comp.object:52484

eugene@world.std.com (Eugene O'Neil) wrote: 
>If we really wanted to model our software after living organisms, we would 
>take randomly generated machine code, run it, and see which samples come 
>closest to achiving our goals. We would then take the "winners", recombine 
>them, and run a new batch, over and over again.
>The drawback to this approach is that it takes hundreds of millions of years 
>to get a decent product to market....  ;-)

I believe you are thinking of biological generations, right?  On a
computer, you can surely get this done in a matter of months (or
less).  The articles I have read on this technology suggest that it
is a very efficient technique, especially on complex problems that
people can barely understand, much less solve.

  Cheers,
  Alan
    (standard disclaimer)
