[TUHS] PDP-11 legacy, C, and modern architectures

Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com
Sat Jun 30 03:51:26 AEST 2018


On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 04:32:59PM +0100, tfb at tfeb.org wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2018, at 18:09, Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I'm not sure how people keep missing the original point.  Which was:
> > the market won't choose a bunch of wimpy cpus when it can get faster
> > ones.  It wasn't about the physics (which I'm not arguing with), it 
> > was about a choice between lots of wimpy cpus and a smaller number of
> > fast cpus.  The market wants the latter, as Ted said, Sun bet heavily
> > on the former and is no more.
> 
> [I said I wouldn't reply more: I'm weak.]
> 
> I think we have been talking at cross-purposes, which is probably
> my fault.  I think you've been using 'wimpy' to mean 'intentionally
> slower than they could be' while I have been using it to mean 'of very
> tiny computational power compared to the power of the whole system'.
> Your usage is probably more correct in terms of the way the term has
> been used historically.

Not "intentionally" as "let me slow this down" but as in "it's faster 
and cheaper to make a slower cpu so I'll just give you more of them".

The market has shown, repeatedly, that more slow cpus are not as fun
as less faster cpus.  

It's not a hard concept and I struggle to understand why it's a point
to discuss.

> But I think my usage tells you something important: that the performance
> of individual cores will, inevitably, become increasingly tiny compared
> to the performance of the system they are in ....

Yeah, so what?  That wasn't the point being discussed though you and Perry
keep pushing it.  



More information about the TUHS mailing list