| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Grant Edwards |
| 2 |
<grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 2012-12-10, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Am Samstag, 8. Dezember 2012, 19:25:55 schrieb Grant: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> It seems like ARM processors will destroy x86 before too long. Does anyone |
| 7 |
>>> think this won't happen? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> no |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> two reasons: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> not enough power |
| 14 |
>> does not run x86 software |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> the second one is a real deal breaker. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Only until somebody invents some sort of scheme where you can write a |
| 19 |
> program using a source language that isn't tied directly to the |
| 20 |
> processor architecture. Then you'd be able to build programs (or even |
| 21 |
> OS kernels) so that they'd run on a variety of CPU architectures! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You speak in jest, but this is now the case for most of the |
| 24 |
applications people use... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Even for legacy binaries, the solution has trended towards sticking |
| 27 |
the thing in a VM and accessing it over the network. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
:wq |
Archives