Re: [Swarm-Modelling] Good reviews with the info the greenhorn needs?

[glen e. p. ropella]

Rob Bowers wrote:
> Are you saying that e.g. NetLogo, AgentSheets, and Swarm all have the
> same uses, if only the user finds them?

No.  I'm only pointing out that "usefulness" is user- and task-
specific.  It is quite difficult to address these issues in the
abstract.  What's always required is to examine the concrete, detailed
needs of any given user and task before a reasonably accurate
recommendation can be made.

Hence, Gary's advice about consulting someone who's been through it a
few times is the most practical advice.  It's much more efficient than
reading reviews _when_ the core requirements for the tools are unclear
or in contention.

> purposes. What I think will especially help the new user is something to
> read to allow him to judge the suitabillity of a toolkit himself.
> 
> And before investing in learning it!

I agree completely.  And I don't disparage the reviews that are out
there, especially side-by-side validation studies.  I think Mike North
did some work awhile back comparing Repast and Swarm directly in the
context of a concrete model.

But, what I'm trying to point out is that this sort of abstract
evaluation will never substitute for tacit knowledge that comes from
actually _trying_ to build a model in any given tool.  And ultimately,
that tacit knowledge can be very different from the abstract knowledge
one infers from a written review or biased comparison.

> Is everyone to learn the use of
> every toolkit, and the programming languages they're based on? This will
> forbid its use to many people who see value in simulation, but happen
> not to be programmers. (Don't get me wrong - learning to program was my
> best move in 10 years).

Unfortunately, yes.  Computer modeling is (and will remain for the near
future) an inherently _technical_ task.  The only thing that really
changes between tools is the language.  One tool uses C.  Another uses
diagrams and paradigms (e.g. Ptolemy II).  Yet another focuses on XML.
But, in the end, as Marcus pointed out, they all come down to the
completely unambiguous technological context of Turing complete
programming languages.  That bottom, hard context always finds a way to
bubble up into the model regardless of what layers of abstraction the
tool kit provides.

The best we can do with current technologies is to _facilitate_ the user
by maximizing ease of use.  And we do that by keeping the tools as clean
as possible, providing as many examples as possible, delineating useful
patterns and idioms where we can, and providing opinions when asked.

> Now if every new, non-programmer user will begin with analogous
> questions, I suspect that somewhere they will have been brought
> together. The question is where...

This gets back to a perfect task for the SDG.  The big task is to
provide guidance on the uses of ABM (regardless of which tool is used).
 The _first_ step in that task is to clearly delineate where Swarm is
efficient and effective and where it's not.  The next step would be to
state the original and evolved requirements for Swarm.  And the next
step is to place those requirements in the space of requirements of
other packages like Mason, Arena, Simulink, etc.

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
And therefore the victories won by a master of war gain him neither
reputation for wisdom nor merit for valour.   -- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"