Not really; you got detailed answer already.
OTOH I did implement 'neurons' with objects, in java, Observer, and
wrote a fuzzy essay to explain it to my OOP coleques,
In my tests, I had 100000 'neurons' per node with response time ~100 ms.
With soft MRU cache (*) I got about 2M 'neurons' per node; 1000
'neurons' in memory, but memory requirements grew to 2G for references.
Response time remained about the same due to good cache hit rate.
So it works for me, but in general case, hardly.
It *could* also work for you, say your + 'neurons' don't have many
But note these quotes I never forget to put around 'neurons'... it's not
ANN, it's *inspired* by NNs. Very basic difference is that my 'neurons'
are carefully crafted state machines with much more complex behaviour
and much less connections compared to (most of) ANNs, not to mention NNs.
Also note that due to that synchronous requirement it's not easy to use
either Observers or Listeners. It's possible, see that Checkpoint trick
in the essay.
HTH, questions, drop me a mail, I'll be glad to help.
WRT COSA, I have to say I'm ambivalent. I do tend to agree that
event-driven programming tends to produce less errors than say state
machines; OTOH there's lot of buggy electronics too. Especially in PC
world, like, I plug in woodoo and my scsi controler hangs. The way I see
it, it's due to open interfaces. And in both hardware and software,
protocols specify communication but not peer states, and you simply
can't avoid states.
OK to make long story short - proof of concept is required, either to
prove or disaprove.
Therefore - good luck guys.
(*) like this: