3 ms·

Rico responded to that question on one Reddit discussion about the issue once: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3zddyh/revisiting_64bitness_in_visu

by ygra 10y ago

Rico responded to that question on one Reddit discussion about the issue once: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3zddyh/revisiting_64bitness_in_visual_studio_and/cylewoo/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3zddyh/revisit... In short, due to VS having an already large working set it hurts more to let it grow even larger than having more registers helps. I also think that many people took his stance as »32 bit should enough for anybody and no one should move to 64 bit«, whereas it was more a »performance characteristics for different types of applications are very different and for Visual Studio it's a choice that will make things slower«. Admittedly, that doesn't appease the people who experience crashes, although extensions like ReSharper are often more wasteful with memory than the IDE itself and those could just as easy be put in a separate process. Although for JetBrains it's probably a marketing argument to push ReSharper users to Rider (which actually uses an out-of-process model and thus not have the problem).

scott_s 10y ago
Like other people, I remain unconvinced by his arguments. The main problem is that no one can say for certain what will actually happen, as the 64-bit version does not exist. I also care about performance (for a living!) and I've been humbled enough times by "for sure this is what will happen" type thinking that I know it's just too hard to predict with certainty what will happen with such a complex interaction of parts. Specifically, I'm skeptical of the argument that more registers will not help, but no one can test the arguments empirically. Which is always dangerous ground. I do, however, buy people's arguments that they are feeling real pain by the memory limitations. Even if 32-bit is faster at the moment, I think it's a short-sighted decision to not port to 64-bit. First, the memory issue that everyone has brought up. Two, I find it likely that over time, using the now-standard bitedness (I know that's not a word, forgive me, I have a cold and mind is foggy) will yield benefits because it's the common path in the processor. (ygra, I know you're not necessarily in agreement with everything Rico said, so I'm not really arguing with you.)

by ygra 10y ago

scott_s 10y ago

Like other people, I remain unconvinced by his arguments. The main problem is that no one can say for certain what will actually happen, as the 64-bit version does not exist. I also care about performance (for a living!) and I've been humbled enough times by "for sure this is what will happen" type thinking that I know it's just too hard to predict with certainty what will happen with such a complex interaction of parts. Specifically, I'm skeptical of the argument that more registers will not help, but no one can test the arguments empirically. Which is always dangerous ground. I do, however, buy people's arguments that they are feeling real pain by the memory limitations. Even if 32-bit is faster at the moment, I think it's a short-sighted decision to not port to 64-bit. First, the memory issue that everyone has brought up. Two, I find it likely that over time, using the now-standard bitedness (I know that's not a word, forgive me, I have a cold and mind is foggy) will yield benefits because it's the common path in the processor. (ygra, I know you're not necessarily in agreement with everything Rico said, so I'm not really arguing with you.)