5 ms·
> How many billions of dollars? Rounding-error-sized marginal costs. Even if you don't plan on pivoting architectures, it's good practice to write as much cod
by ryanianian 6y ago
> How many billions of dollars?
Rounding-error-sized marginal costs.
Even if you don't plan on pivoting architectures, it's good practice to write as much code as possible without assembly/intrinsics. If you're writing standards-compliant C/C++/Objective-C/Swift/* it's not a huge burden to change architectures. They also have past-experience with such transitions, so hopefully they kept the "keep the code portable" mantra close over the past 10+ years.
The choice to do this seems relatively obvious for Apple. They have spent years building up their silicon game with portables. Their frustration with Intel is also palpable, so it was probably "just" a waiting game (not "how" or "if") in deciding when to pull the trigger and start using those chips outside of iPhones/iPads.
- Someone 6y agoIf you have to maintain any highly optimized assembly/intrinsics code, it’s a very good idea to also maintain an “as portable as feasible” C version for comparison testing.
- AgentOrange1234 6y agoProbably a big opportunity cost though. It surely takes a lot of time from senior engineers to port the software, figure out this whole translation system, etc...
- scarface74 6y agoThe story was that it took two engineers to keep OS X compatible with Intel when they were on PPC. It took only a small company - Connectix - to make a better 68K emulator that worked perfectly with PPC/Classic MacOS than Apple could.