3 ms·
Yes, it's mentioned on page 2 of the article (you may have missed it was two-paged)
by grondilu 9y ago
Yes, it's mentioned on page 2 of the article (you may have missed it was two-paged)
- Etheryte 9y agoYeah, that's a design choice I just don't understand. The article is already lengthy, what improvement does splitting it to pages manually give? I completely missed the fact that it's multiple pages.
- annnnd 9y agoIn the old days this technique was used to get information about number of people who found the article interesting enough to read the next page, all without JavaScript. This of course assumes that readers notice the "next page" link, where is where they seem to have failed (or maybe the expectations of readers have changed so much that the new breed of readers no longer notice such links - quite possible).
- radicalbyte 9y agoIt was used for ad impressions. Each page read = new ads = more $$ for the publisher.
- mikepurvis 9y agoFor better or worse, it also improves analytics for the publisher— they can measure what proportion of readers made it to page 2, and of those, how long they spent on page 1. (Yes, some of that could be done with scroll tracking too, "clicked to view page 2" is still a very strong signal of engagement.)
- AriaMinaei 9y agoThanks! I did miss that page. But even though they mention "... calls for the development of software tools to help programming the new architecture...", I'm still unsure as to how programming for such a processor might look like.
- benibela 9y agoPerhaps it will make trees faster than hashmaps? Linked lists better than arrays?