ECJ-INTEREST-L Archives

October 2009

ECJ-INTEREST-L@LISTSERV.GMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Claes Gyllenswärd <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:08:05 +0100
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (557 bytes) , text/html (650 bytes)
I've been wondering for a while what determines "quality" in GP-software.

I've previously used the proprietary product Discipulus, but didn't like it
due to it's very closed nature.

I'm wondering if there are differences in how different software produce
their results, and if the difference will matter.
Could there be some solutions that either ECJ or Discipulus (or other
product) will find, while the other never will?

I've been using ecj for quite a while btw, and think it's great stuff.
Big thanks to Sean  (And everyone else involved) for all his efforts :-)


ATOM RSS1 RSS2