3 ms·
You are right. I kept that in mind all along while reading the post, though I perhaps showed less sympathy in my remark. I really regret if I sounded like a sma
by andos 16y ago
You are right. I kept that in mind all along while reading the post, though I perhaps showed less sympathy in my remark. I really regret if I sounded like a smart-arse.
The link you posted is great; the chart alone speaks volumes! Already at that point in time one could notice how the trend with power and CPU frequency was changing, while transistor count kept on growing. James Hague would have had second thoughts, I believe, if he had seen that chart. Moore's Law suffered quite a plot twist the last decade.
(Curiously, Herb Sutter is the secretary of the C++ standards committee. They finally finished the standardization of basic threading — among other stuff — 5 years after the Dr. Dobbs article!)
- wladimir 16y agoNah, I had the same reaction while reading the article. Then I realized that it was from 2004. The slow push for standardization is indeed curious. Standardizing threading would only be the beginning, as threading is (for most things) a much too low-level abstraction. It is very hard to scale threading, with the locking and other synchronization it usually entails, to large number of cores (soon, >16 won't be that strange). And it's very bug-prone. I think it's disappointing that more high-level primitives such as co-routines, work queues, task-based parallelism, map/reduce and such are finding such slow adaption in mainstream languages. You'd say that making the writing of parallelized code faster and more robust is an important goal.