>In 18 months a CPU that costs $200 will perform twice as fast as the current CPU for $200, I've never seen bang for the buck like doubling the performance of y

>In 18 months a CPU that costs $200 will perform twice as fast as the current CPU for $200, I've never seen bang for the buck like doubling the performance of your code for $200. (Most apps are IO bound anyway, so you want to add disks not CPU) 2001 called, they want their answer back. Ok, that's a little harsh, but really, you're answer was perfect for about six years ago, but if you've taken a look at chip performance recently, it has certainly not been doubling every year. What you can get for cheaper is more cores, but that certainly isn't a free lunch, as many have pointed out. Suddenly having a good language that can be per formant and scale matters (python anyone?). Go is going to have a lot of catching up to do, as writing good multi threaded libraries are hard, and a good parallel GC is even harder. I don't mean to pick on your opinion, because its one shared by many, but things are going to get very interesting in the next 10 years as we really will see the end of moore's law in terms of linear CPU performance and instead get many-core processors to play with.