4 ms·
> Because if this is not revolutionary, I don't know, what else deserves the term ... DNA computing was known and well-developed from around the late 90s. This
by sklogic 10y ago
> Because if this is not revolutionary, I don't know, what else deserves the term ...
DNA computing was known and well-developed from around the late 90s. This work only adds a tiny layer of abstraction to simplify building circuits - something that previously was done with raw schematics. Given how simple those circuits are, there is not that much difference, really.
- hutzlibu 10y ago> Given how simple those circuits are, there is not that much difference, really. So this might be the real limitation, but if I don't have to build those circuits by hand, couldn't I build much more complex circuits with that "tiny layer of abstraction"? And as I said, I don't know much about verilog or genetics, but from a quick overview, it seemed to me, that I could define variables, flow-structure, etc. (modules?) so pretty much classic programming?
- sklogic 10y agoYou're not building any distinct conductive "wires" in a cell - each wire is a global chemical signal, therefore there is a hard limit on how many of those you can put into a single cell. And, behavioural is not supported (i.e., no flip-flops, and definitely no clock signal), so you can only have combinational logic.
- hutzlibu 10y agoThanks for your input. So it seems, there are indeed huge limitations ... Could you give a rough number "on how many of those you can put into a single cell"? Anyway, I still think, this is a great step forward, but maybe not as revolutionary, as I thought at first look (I think basic info like this, belongs into the news article).
- gravypod 10y agoCould you not split the computation up across multiple cells? IE: Don't only create 1 cell, create 4 cells that do different parts of the task an do message passing to each other.