5 ms·

With computational power becoming cheaper and cheaper - will we have two-language problem anymore?

by amrrs 8y ago

mac01021 8y ago
Yes (if you're asking what I think you're asking). Computers are never fast enough. Even if they get 1000x faster, we'll want to squeeze every drop of performance out by using C or whatever.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  As someone that remembers when C compilers for home computers weren't able to compete with junior devs hand writing Assembly, it always feels interesting to see this kind of remarks. Thankfully the changes in modern hardware architectures have triggered many runtime devs to start having another look at their compiler backends, improving vector instructions support and access to GPGPU features, instead of sticking with just good enough for CRUD apps.
JustFinishedBSG 8y ago
The target of julia is computional sciences. Sure for a web apps you don't care if your language is 30x slower, 1ms or 30us who cares, you can just rely on the raw speed of your overpowered computer and enjoy your favorite language. But when it's between waiting 1 day or 1 month for your results you start caring quite a lot
- dnautics 8y ago
  Sometimes the wait isn't the computational time wait, but the developer time wait, too.
  - xiaodai 8y ago
    Truth. See http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/the-nonlinear-effect-of-code-speed-on-productivity/ http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/the-nonlinear-effect-of-c...
krull10 8y ago
Yes, in the sciences and engineering faster computers = larger, more accurate models one can feasibly study. So while the old models might run faster, many researchers will transition to solving more complicated problems that become just as slow as what we solve now. We're not going to have a computer that can solve the Schrodinger Equation for a brain anytime soon.
coldtea 8y ago
Computational power doesn't become cheaper and cheaper. If anything it's the inverse: Not only Moore's law has stopped working for several years now ([1]), but we have also greatly increased what we do with computers (e.g. the whole dataset of an 80s company could fit on a 1GB disk -- today we routinely need to process terabytes of data both streaming and offline -- see also 4K video, webasm vs simple websites of 1999, VR, AR, and so on). But even if computational power increased continuously and became cheaper and cheaper it would only help if our data and processing needs remained static or increased at a significantly slower pace. [1] https://steveblank.com/2018/09/12/the-end-of-more-the-death-of-moores-law/ https://steveblank.com/2018/09/12/the-end-of-more-the-death-... https://www.extremetech.com/computing/256558-nvidias-ceo-declares-moores-law-dead https://www.extremetech.com/computing/256558-nvidias-ceo-dec... https://interestingengineering.com/no-more-transistors-the-end-of-moores-law https://interestingengineering.com/no-more-transistors-the-e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
- yellowapple 8y ago
  I don't know if I'd call processing terabytes of data "routine" even in this day and age. Same deal with 4k video, VR/AR, etc. Yeah, some particularly large or cutting-edge companies might be doing that, but the average business will likely not have nearly as extreme of needs. Re: the "webasm vs simple websites of 1999" factor, I think that's a case of designers (and the programmers enabling them) self-inducing such problems. Most business sites don't actually need all those newfangled features and tools; plain old HTML5+CSS3 (plus maybe a little bit of JS here and there) is more than good enough.

With computational power becoming cheaper and cheaper - will we have two-language problem anymore?

by amrrs 8y ago

With computational power becoming cheaper and cheaper - will we have two-language problem anymore?

Yes (if you're asking what I think you're asking). Computers are never fast enough. Even if they get 1000x faster, we'll want to squeeze every drop of performance out by using C or whatever.

pjmlp 8y ago
As someone that remembers when C compilers for home computers weren't able to compete with junior devs hand writing Assembly, it always feels interesting to see this kind of remarks. Thankfully the changes in modern hardware architectures have triggered many runtime devs to start having another look at their compiler backends, improving vector instructions support and access to GPGPU features, instead of sticking with just good enough for CRUD apps.

JustFinishedBSG 8y ago

The target of julia is computional sciences. Sure for a web apps you don't care if your language is 30x slower, 1ms or 30us who cares, you can just rely on the raw speed of your overpowered computer and enjoy your favorite language. But when it's between waiting 1 day or 1 month for your results you start caring quite a lot

dnautics 8y ago
Sometimes the wait isn't the computational time wait, but the developer time wait, too.
- xiaodai 8y ago
  Truth. See http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/the-nonlinear-effect-of-code-speed-on-productivity/ http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/the-nonlinear-effect-of-c...

krull10 8y ago

Yes, in the sciences and engineering faster computers = larger, more accurate models one can feasibly study. So while the old models might run faster, many researchers will transition to solving more complicated problems that become just as slow as what we solve now. We're not going to have a computer that can solve the Schrodinger Equation for a brain anytime soon.

coldtea 8y ago

Computational power doesn't become cheaper and cheaper. If anything it's the inverse: Not only Moore's law has stopped working for several years now ([1]), but we have also greatly increased what we do with computers (e.g. the whole dataset of an 80s company could fit on a 1GB disk -- today we routinely need to process terabytes of data both streaming and offline -- see also 4K video, webasm vs simple websites of 1999, VR, AR, and so on). But even if computational power increased continuously and became cheaper and cheaper it would only help if our data and processing needs remained static or increased at a significantly slower pace. [1] https://steveblank.com/2018/09/12/the-end-of-more-the-death-of-moores-law/ https://steveblank.com/2018/09/12/the-end-of-more-the-death-... https://www.extremetech.com/computing/256558-nvidias-ceo-declares-moores-law-dead https://www.extremetech.com/computing/256558-nvidias-ceo-dec... https://interestingengineering.com/no-more-transistors-the-end-of-moores-law https://interestingengineering.com/no-more-transistors-the-e... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

yellowapple 8y ago
I don't know if I'd call processing terabytes of data "routine" even in this day and age. Same deal with 4k video, VR/AR, etc. Yeah, some particularly large or cutting-edge companies might be doing that, but the average business will likely not have nearly as extreme of needs. Re: the "webasm vs simple websites of 1999" factor, I think that's a case of designers (and the programmers enabling them) self-inducing such problems. Most business sites don't actually need all those newfangled features and tools; plain old HTML5+CSS3 (plus maybe a little bit of JS here and there) is more than good enough.