| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:06:36 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 2012-12-10, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Am Samstag, 8. Dezember 2012, 19:25:55 schrieb Grant: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> It seems like ARM processors will destroy x86 before too long. |
| 9 |
> >> Does anyone think this won't happen? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > no |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > two reasons: |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > not enough power |
| 16 |
> > does not run x86 software |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > the second one is a real deal breaker. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Only until somebody invents some sort of scheme where you can write a |
| 21 |
> program using a source language that isn't tied directly to the |
| 22 |
> processor architecture. Then you'd be able to build programs (or even |
| 23 |
> OS kernels) so that they'd run on a variety of CPU architectures! |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
We can do that *already* |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
java |
| 29 |
perl |
| 30 |
python |
| 31 |
dotnet |
| 32 |
and any number of other languages compiled to bytecode. There's too |
| 33 |
many to list. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Why have these languages not taken over the world seeing as they all a) |
| 36 |
exist b) exist now c) run now d) do what it says on the box e) run |
| 37 |
about as fast as C most of the time in places where it matters? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Because in theory they do what they do well. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. |
| 42 |
In practice there is a difference between theory and practice |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 47 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives