Smalltalk as a programming language for robotics?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programming languages for robotics applications are continually being developed and extended as the applications become more sophisticated. Language evolution is proceeding along two directions: (1) providing more and better facilities for task-level as opposed to robot-level programming and (2) providing better facilities for simulation, graphics and symbolic manipulation. The trend makes it clear that the full capabilities of a general purpose programming language are needed. Instead of developing a new language from the ground up, it is easier and more productive to take an existing language with all the requisite general purpose facilities and specialize it for robotics. Because of its symbolic processing facilities, its object-oriented nature, its usefulness as a simulation language, and its sophisticated graphical interface, Smalltalk is an ideal candidate for specialization. We discuss in more detail why this is the case and we show how a programming language that approaches the power of AL can be imbedded in Smalltalk within 2-4 person-months of effort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it