1 |
Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2012, 20:06:58 schrieb Grant Edwards: |
2 |
> On 2012-12-10, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:06:36 +0000 (UTC) |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
> >> On 2012-12-10, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >> wrote: |
9 |
> >> > Am Samstag, 8. Dezember 2012, 19:25:55 schrieb Grant: |
10 |
> >> >> It seems like ARM processors will destroy x86 before too long. |
11 |
> >> >> Does anyone think this won't happen? |
12 |
> >> > |
13 |
> >> > no |
14 |
> >> > |
15 |
> >> > two reasons: |
16 |
> >> > |
17 |
> >> > not enough power |
18 |
> >> > does not run x86 software |
19 |
> >> > |
20 |
> >> > the second one is a real deal breaker. |
21 |
> >> |
22 |
> >> Only until somebody invents some sort of scheme where you can write a |
23 |
> >> program using a source language that isn't tied directly to the |
24 |
> >> processor architecture. Then you'd be able to build programs (or even |
25 |
> >> OS kernels) so that they'd run on a variety of CPU architectures! |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > We can do that *already* |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > java |
30 |
> > perl |
31 |
> > python |
32 |
> > dotnet |
33 |
> > and any number of other languages compiled to bytecode. There's too |
34 |
> > many to list. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> I know. :) |
37 |
> |
38 |
> And even if you stick with old-school compiled languages to C, |
39 |
> supporting multiple architectures isn't any more difficult than |
40 |
> supporting the plethora of x86-based motherboards and chipsets. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> * Apple transitioned from 68K to PPC to x86 without much problem, |
43 |
> and they don't seem to have any problem getting software to run on |
44 |
> ARM devices. |
45 |
|
46 |
apple had what? 1% market share back then? |
47 |
|
48 |
Legacy apps running all around, doing heavy lifting.... no way to 'port' them. |
49 |
Just remember all those COBOL programmers who got reactivated back in 1999. |
50 |
|
51 |
Or Itanium. One thing why it failed so hard: it didn't run x86 software well |
52 |
enough. If you have to go all new - why not POWER or UltraSparc instead? |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
#163933 |