4 ms·
if the cost is attributed to "targeting everything" as you say, then wouldn't those things just get started by targeting one thing? Neither you or I can prove t
by enos_feedler 5y ago
if the cost is attributed to "targeting everything" as you say, then wouldn't those things just get started by targeting one thing? Neither you or I can prove there are things not invented because of this, so nothing to debate here. The reason why pcwalton spent lots of effort jumping through hoops building a vector graphics library that targets lots of platforms is because we already know that vector graphics is something we had on a single platform. It is really hard for to imagine something not being invented/created at all because there isn't a single language that can express its computation everywhere simultaneously.
- ncmncm 5y agoThat argument has been repeated over and over again, over decades, and is proven wildly off the mark the moment standardization enables the test, every time. Strangely, the fact never prevents it being trotted out again, every time.
- enos_feedler 5y agoThe only time standardization unlocks innovation is when agreement is core to the function of the system (TCP/IP, communication protocols, etc). If it's simply to create a common abstraction across similar things, then it won't unlock anything. It's simply a nice to have.
- smoldesu 5y agoWhy doesn't Apple consider their GPU to be a core function of their system, then?
- ncmncm 5y agoStrangely, the fact still never prevents it being trotted out again, every time.
- rowanG077 5y agoA GPU is not core to the function of modern personal computers? It's not 1990 anymore. Literally every single personal computer has a GPU. In fact it would be more apt to say that nowadays you buy a GPU that has sacrificed a small part of its transistor budget to include a CPU.
- ncmncm 5y agoThe claim seems to be that the cited phenomenon applies only when interoperability between disjoint organizations is involved. But we see its wider applicability all the time, if only because education and similar infrastructure is exactly such an interoperation.
- enos_feedler 5y agoYes its true. Which is exactly why javascript and html gave way to a broader programmer market. This creates lots of educational content and improves the educational experience. Especially bc standards evolve slow and don’t typically break. So you can find old resources that are still useful. That being said, it doesnt create innovation. This is why you have so many web frameworks. Innovation cant truly run wild so people reorganize whats inside the box already. To get outside you must connect compute with new sensors, io, etc. and in this case standardization doesnt matter initially
- smoldesu 5y agoIf you find such innovation, let me know. We've given Apple just about 2 decades to blow us away here, and all we've got to show for it is Final Cut Pro.
- ncmncm 5y agoYet, every widely adopted standard leads to such an expansion of the whole market that overwhelmingly more resources become available to innovate. Thus, FORTRAN became FORTRAN II, III, IV, Fortran77, 90, driving demand for supercomputers CDC 6400, Cray, and on up. UNIX became Posix, now Linux. Bell Labs C became C++, then C++98, C++11, now C++20 and Rust. Silicon Graphics SGL became OpenGL that spawned numerous successors, and now Vulkan, which has already spawned Vulkan 1.1. So, the "innovation" argument is always trotted out, against copious evidence. But MBAs always fall for it, and we get things like DirectX, CUDA, and Metal that invariably end up acting to stall innovation, instead.