Related
So, I'm trying to implement the NEAT(Neuroevolution of augmenting topologies) algorithm and have stumbled into a problem. How are networks in species with only one member crossed over?
One solution I came up with is to perform inter-species crossover. But I don't know if it would be effective.
In NEAT, there are four ways in which you can create candidate individuals for the next generation:
Pass an exact copy of an individual
Pass a mutated copy of an individual
Do crossover using two individuals from a given species
Do crossover with two individuals of different species (iter-species)
Of course, you can always do (1). This is often applied to "elites", which may be the best of all, or the best of each species.
You can also always do (2), again to a subset of all individuals or to a subset (random or sorted) within each species.
As you correctly anticipate, (4) is also always a possibility, as long as you do have at least two species (it seems things would be a bit broken otherwise).
Regarding (3) in case you have a species with only one individual? You can't really do it, right?
There are two things that can help in this situation. First, use a mix of 1 to 4 options. The frequency for each option is normally determined using hyperparameters (as well as the frequency for each type of mutation and so on).
But here I would actually reconsider your speciation algorithm. Speciation means separating your population into groups, where hopefully more similar individuals are grouped together. There are different ways in which you can do this, and you can re-examine your species with different frequencies as well (you can reset your species every generation!). It does not seem very efficient if your clustering algorithm (because speciation is a type of clustering) is returning species with one or even zero individuals. So this is where I would actually work!
As a final note, I remember a full NEAT implementation is no basic project. I would recommend not trying to implement this on your own. I think it is a better use of your time to work with a well-established implementation, so you can focus on understanding how things work and how to adapt them for your needs, and not so much on bugs and other implementation details.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lua_Programming/Statements says:
Statements are pieces of code that can be executed and that contain an
instruction and expressions to use with it. Some statements will also
contain code inside of themselves that may, for example, be run under
certain conditions. Dissimilarly to expressions, they can be put
directly in code and will execute.
What does it mean by instructions?
Am I looking too deep in to it
That article seems very poorly written in general. Containing gems like "Assignment is [...] used to assign". Your confusion is probably also just a result of this awkward style. The way I read it, the book separates between:
Statements: Do something specific, like adding two values into a variable.
Instructions: Things you can do in general, like adding any two values.
It seems to suggest a sort of abstraction-application relationship between the two.
That's a very specific way of dividing between the two and it's ultimately very inconsequential, so you can probably treat them as interchangeable while reading that book.
What is the benefit of using paragraphs and sections for executing pieces of code, instead of using a subprogram instead? As far as I can see paragraphs and sections are dangerous because they have an non intuitive control flow, its easy to fall through and execute stuff you never meant to execute, and there is no variable (item) scoping, therefore it encourages a style of programming where everything is visible to everything else. Its a slippery soup.
I read a lot, but I could not find anything related to the comparative benefit of paragraphs/sections vs a subprogram. I also asked online some people in some COBOL forum, but their answers were along the lines of "is this a joke" or "go learn programming"(!!!).
I do not wish to engage in a discussion of stylistic preferences, everyone writes the way that their brain works, I only want to know, is there any benefit to using paragraphs/sections for flow control? As in, are there any COBOL operations that can be done only by using paragraphs/sections? Or is it just a remnant of an early way of thinking about code?
Because no other language I know of has mimicked that, so it either has some mechanical concrete essential reason to exist in COBOL, or it is a stylistic preference of the COBOL people. Can someone illuminate me on what is happening?
These are multiple questions... the two most important ones:
Are there any COBOL operations that can be done only by using paragraphs/sections?
Yes. A likely not complete list:
USE statements in DECLARATIVES can only apply to a paragraph or a section. These are used for handling file errors and exceptions. Not all compilers support this COBOL standard feature in full.
Segmentation (primary: a program that is only partially loaded in memory) is only possible with sections; but that is to be considered a "legacy feature" (at least I don't know of people actually using it this way explicitly); see the comment of Gilbert Le Blanc for more details on this
fall-through, many other languages have this feature with a kind of a switch statement (COBOL's EVALUATE, which is not the same as a common switch but can be used similar has an explicit break and no fall-through)
GO TO DEPENDING ON (could be recoded to achieve something similar with EVALUATE and then either PERFORM, if the paragraphs are expected to fall-through, which is not uncommon, then that creates a lot of extra code)
GO TO in general and especially nice - the old obsolete ALTER statement
PERFORM statement, format 1 "out-of-line"
file state is only shared between programs when you define it as EXTERNAL, and you often want to have a file state being limited to a single program
up to COBOL85: EXIT statement (plain without anything else, actually doing nothing else then a CONTINUE would)
What is the benefit of using paragraphs and sections for executing pieces of code, instead of using a subprogram instead?
shared data (I guess you know of programs with static data or otherwise (module)global data that is shared between functions/methods and also different source code files)
much less overhead than a CALL is
consistency:
you know what's in your code, you don't know what another program does (or at least: you cannot guarantee that it will do the same some years later exactly the same)
easier to extend/change: adding another variable (and also removing part of it, change its size) to a CALL USING means that you also have to adjust the called program - and all programs that call this, even when you place the complete definition in a copybook, which is very reasonable, this means you have to recompile all programs that use this
a section/paragraph is always available (it is already loaded when the program runs), a CALLed program may not be available or lead to an exception, for example because it cannot be loaded as its parameters have changed
less stuff to code
Note: While not all compilers support this you can work around nearly all of the runtime overhead and consistency issue when you use one source files with multiple program definitions in (possibly nested) and using a static call-convention. This likely gives you the "modern" view you aim for with scope-limitation of variables, within the programs either persistent (like local-static) when defined in WORKING-STORAGE or always passed when in LINKAGE or "local-temporary" when in LOCAL-STORAGE.
Should all code of an application be in one program?
[I've added this one to not lead to bad assumptions] Of course not!
Using sub-programs and also user-defined functions (possibly even nested providing the option for "scoped" and "shared" data) is a good thing where you have a "feature boundary" (for example: access to data, user-interface, ...) or with "modern" COBOL where you have a "language boundary" (for example: direct CALLs of C/Java/whatever), but it isn't "jut for limiting a counter to a section" - in this case: either define a variable which state is not guaranteed to be available after any PERFORM or define one for the section/paragraph; in both cases it would be reasonable to use a prefix telling you this.
Using that "separate by boundary" approach also takes care of the "bad habit of everything being seen by everyone" issue (which is in any case only true for "all sections/paragraphs in the same program).
Personal side note: I would only use paragraphs where it is a "shop/team rule" (it is better to stay consistent then to do things different "just because they are better" [still providing an option to possibly change the common rule]) or for GO TO, which I normally not use.
SECTIONs and EXIT SECTION + EXIT PERFORM [CYCLE] (and very rarely GOBACK/EXIT PROGRAM) make paragraphs nearly unnecessary.
very short answer. subroutines!!
Subroutines execute in the context of the calling routine. Two virtues: no parameter passing, easy to create. In some languages, subroutines are private to (and are part of) the calling (invoking) routine (see various dialects of BASIC).
direct answer: Section and Paragraph support a different way of thinking about programming. Higher performance than call subprogram. Supports overlays. The "fall thru" aspect can be quite useful, a feature rather than a vice. They may be necessary depending on what you are doing with a specific COBOL compiler.
See also PL/1, BAL/360, architecture 360/370/...
As a veteran Cobol dinosaur, I would say asking about the benefit is not the right question. I used paragraph (or section) differently than a subprogram. The right question in my opinion is when to use them logically. If I can make an analogy, if you have a Dog java class, you will write Dog-appropriate methods within it. If there's a cat involved, you may need a helper class. In this case the helper class is the subprogram. Though, you can instead code the helper class methods inside the Dog class, but that will be bad coding.
In any other language I would recommend putting self contained functions into subroutines.
However in COBOL not so much. If the code is very likely to be used in other programs then a subroutine is a good idea. Otherwise not!
The reason being the total lack of any checks on the number type or existence of passed parameters at compile time. Small errors in call statements lead to program crashes at run time. Limiting the use of sub-routines and carefully checking the calling code for errors makes for a more reliable program.
Using paragraphs any type mismatch will be flagged at compile time, or, an automatic conversion will occur.
I'm relatively new to Ruby, so this is a pretty general question. I have found through the Ruby Docs page a lot of methods that seem to do the exact same thing or very similar. For example chars vs split(' ') and each vs map vs collect. Sometimes there are small differences and other times I see no difference at all.
My question here is how do I know which is best practice, or is it just personal preference? I'm sure this varies from instance to instance, so if I can learn some of the more important ones to be cognizant of I would really appreciate that because I would like to develop good habits early.
I am a bit confused by your specific examples:
map and collect are aliases. They don't "do the exact same thing", they are the exact same thing. They are just two names for the same method. You can use whatever name you wish, or what reads best in context, or what your team has decided as a Coding Standard. The Community seems to have settled on map.
each and map/collect are completely different, there is no similarity there, apart from the general fact that they both operate on collections. map transform a collection by mapping every element to a new element using a transformation operation. It returns a new collection (an Array, actually) with the transformed elements. each performs a side-effect for every element of the collection. Since it is only used for its side-effect, the return value is irrelevant (it might just as well return nil like Kernel#puts does, in languages like C, C++, Java, C♯, it would return void), but it is specified to always return its receiver.
split splits a String into an Array of Strings based on a delimiter that can be either a Regexp (in which case you can also influence whether or not the delimiter itself gets captured in the output or ignored) or a String, or nil (in which case the global default separator gets used). chars returns an Array with the individual characters (represented as Strings of length 1, since Ruby doesn't have an specific Character type). chars belongs together in a family with bytes and codepoints which do the same thing for bytes and codepoints, respectively. split can only be used as a replacement for one of the methods in this family (chars) and split is much more general than that.
So, in the examples you gave, there really isn't much similarity at all, and I cannot imagine any situation where it would be unclear which one to choose.
In general, you have a problem and you look for the method (or combination of methods) that solve it. You don't look at a bunch of methods and look for the problem they solve.
There'll typically be only one method that fits a specific problem. Larger problems can be broken down into different subproblems in different ways, so it is indeed possible that you may end up with different combinations of methods to solve the same larger problem, but for each individual subproblem, there will generally be only one applicable method.
When documentation states that 2 methods do the same, it's just matter of preference. To learn the details, you should always start with Ruby API documentation
Seems like it's inconsistent in the lists module. For example, split has the number as the first argument and the list as the second, but sublists has the list as the first argument and the len as the second argument.
OK, a little history as I remember it and some principles behind my style.
As Christian has said the libraries evolved and tended to get the argument order and feel from the impulses we were getting just then. So for example the reason why element/setelement have the argument order they do is because it matches the arg/3 predicate in Prolog; logical then but not now. Often we would have the thing being worked on first, but unfortunately not always. This is often a good choice as it allows "optional" arguments to be conveniently added to the end; for example string:substr/2/3. Functions with the thing as the last argument were often influenced by functional languages with currying, for example Haskell, where it is very easy to use currying and partial evaluation to build specific functions which can then be applied to the thing. This is very noticeable in the higher order functions in lists.
The only influence we didn't have was from the OO world. :-)
Usually we at least managed to be consistent within a module, but not always. See lists again. We did try to have some consistency, so the argument order in the higher order functions in dict/sets match those of the corresponding functions in lists.
The problem was also aggravated by the fact that we, especially me, had a rather cavalier attitude to libraries. I just did not see them as a selling point for the language, so I wasn't that worried about it. "If you want a library which does something then you just write it" was my motto. This meant that my libraries were structured, just not always with the same structure. :-) That was how many of the initial libraries came about.
This, of course, creates unnecessary confusion and breaks the law of least astonishment, but we have not been able to do anything about it. Any suggestions of revising the modules have always been met with a resounding "no".
My own personal style is a usually structured, though I don't know if it conforms to any written guidelines or standards.
I generally have the thing or things I am working on as the first arguments, or at least very close to the beginning; the order depends on what feels best. If there is a global state which is chained through the whole module, which there usually is, it is placed as the last argument and given a very descriptive name like St0, St1, ... (I belong to the church of short variable names). Arguments which are chained through functions (both input and output) I try to keep the same argument order as return order. This makes it much easier to see the structure of the code. Apart from that I try to group together arguments which belong together. Also, where possible, I try to preserve the same argument order throughout a whole module.
None of this is very revolutionary, but I find if you keep a consistent style then it is one less thing to worry about and it makes your code feel better and generally be more readable. Also I will actually rewrite code if the argument order feels wrong.
A small example which may help:
fubar({f,A0,B0}, Arg2, Ch0, Arg4, St0) ->
{A1,Ch1,St1} = foo(A0, Arg2, Ch0, St0),
{B1,Ch2,St2} = bar(B0, Arg4, Ch1, St1),
Res = baz(A1, B1),
{Res,Ch2,St2}.
Here Ch is a local chained through variable while St is a more global state. Check out the code on github for LFE, especially the compiler, if you want a longer example.
This became much longer than it should have been, sorry.
P.S. I used the word thing instead of object to avoid confusion about what I was talking.
No, there is no consistently-used idiom in the sense that you mean.
However, there are some useful relevant hints that apply especially when you're going to be making deeply recursive calls. For instance, keeping whichever arguments will remain unchanged during tail calls in the same order/position in the argument list allows the virtual machine to make some very nice optimizations.