4 ms·

This is from a school? The author (Doeppner, it seems) should be embarrassed. "x64" is a marketing name primarily used by Microsoft. Sure, many of us know what

This is from a school? The author (Doeppner, it seems) should be embarrassed. "x64" is a marketing name primarily used by Microsoft. Sure, many of us know what you're talking about when you use "x64", but it's just not a real thing. There's no 464, 564, 664, 764, et cetera, so the "x" means nothing, unlike its use in "x86". It's like using "virus" to describe a Trojan - people will generally get the gist, but you're technically wrong, and if you're supposed to know what you're talking about, then you're certainly not showing it.

Joker_vD 4y ago
Yeah, it's actually called EM64T or at the very worst IA-32e. /s Speaking seriously, there are two variants of this architecture: AMD64 and Intel 64 (that's what AMD and Intel call their respective versions). Everything else is misnomer, including legacy monikers such as "x86-64".
kvathupo 4y ago
As a recent grad, I was going to say education on hardware optimization is lacking in universities, but then again there's a lot of snake oil on sites like stackoverflow. Although users like Peter Cordes have done a good job cleaning up, people still seem to eschew benchmarking for eyeballing code à la "Big O", ignoring the effects of compilers and hardware (CPU type, memory layout). I wouldn't be too harsh on the prof for a throwaway doc: it reads as a perfectly fine intro to concepts like stack, heap, and basic assembly instructions. I'd argue most computer science students, with aims of a programming job, don't need to even know these concepts [1], [2]. With hardware advancements, most probably don't need to worry about code performance. Of those who do, they'll just google Agner Fog, and learn on their own just fine. Despite my opening sentence, I'm sure the Electrical Engineering/Computer Engineering departments are much stronger in this area. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_interpreter_lock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_interpreter_lock [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
Blackthorn 4y ago
This is one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding I've seen on this site.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- johnklos 4y ago
  > one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding I think your reaction is an excellent example of a significant problem with discourse on the Internet. Correct terms matter. Using incorrect terminology just because it's common is no excuse. Being pedantic about things isn't helpful, either, but which is worse: a teacher in a specific field using terms incorrectly, and therefore passing along that incorrect usage, or someone pointing that out? So let's reexamine: is this "one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding", or is this the Internet showing its lack of tolerance for a genuine care for facts and correctness?
  - biorach 4y ago
    I vote bikeshedding
  - Blackthorn 4y ago
    Sorry but you veered way past "someone pointing it out" and crashed your car into the bike shed when you said "The author (Doeppner, it seems) should be embarrassed."
  - Joker_vD 4y ago
    So, what is the correct term then: "Intel 64" or "AMD64"? That's what the CPU manufacturers call their specification of that architecture right now. Intel used to call it "IA-32e". AMD called it "x86-64" before they've released it, but then switched to "AMD64". All of those are "marketing names" used (or no longer used) by the manufacturers. How should we pick the correct one? Is there even a correct one?
    - johnklos 4y ago
smegsicle 4y ago
and then there's x32, the (abandoned?) project for taking advantage of most of AMD64 while keeping pointers as 32bit to conserve memory

Joker_vD 4y ago

Yeah, it's actually called EM64T or at the very worst IA-32e. /s Speaking seriously, there are two variants of this architecture: AMD64 and Intel 64 (that's what AMD and Intel call their respective versions). Everything else is misnomer, including legacy monikers such as "x86-64".

kvathupo 4y ago

As a recent grad, I was going to say education on hardware optimization is lacking in universities, but then again there's a lot of snake oil on sites like stackoverflow. Although users like Peter Cordes have done a good job cleaning up, people still seem to eschew benchmarking for eyeballing code à la "Big O", ignoring the effects of compilers and hardware (CPU type, memory layout). I wouldn't be too harsh on the prof for a throwaway doc: it reads as a perfectly fine intro to concepts like stack, heap, and basic assembly instructions. I'd argue most computer science students, with aims of a programming job, don't need to even know these concepts [1], [2]. With hardware advancements, most probably don't need to worry about code performance. Of those who do, they'll just google Agner Fog, and learn on their own just fine. Despite my opening sentence, I'm sure the Electrical Engineering/Computer Engineering departments are much stronger in this area. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_interpreter_lock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_interpreter_lock [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript

Blackthorn 4y ago

This is one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding I've seen on this site.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
johnklos 4y ago
> one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding I think your reaction is an excellent example of a significant problem with discourse on the Internet. Correct terms matter. Using incorrect terminology just because it's common is no excuse. Being pedantic about things isn't helpful, either, but which is worse: a teacher in a specific field using terms incorrectly, and therefore passing along that incorrect usage, or someone pointing that out? So let's reexamine: is this "one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding", or is this the Internet showing its lack of tolerance for a genuine care for facts and correctness?
- biorach 4y ago
  I vote bikeshedding
- Blackthorn 4y ago
  Sorry but you veered way past "someone pointing it out" and crashed your car into the bike shed when you said "The author (Doeppner, it seems) should be embarrassed."
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  So, what is the correct term then: "Intel 64" or "AMD64"? That's what the CPU manufacturers call their specification of that architecture right now. Intel used to call it "IA-32e". AMD called it "x86-64" before they've released it, but then switched to "AMD64". All of those are "marketing names" used (or no longer used) by the manufacturers. How should we pick the correct one? Is there even a correct one?
  - johnklos 4y ago

smegsicle 4y ago

and then there's x32, the (abandoned?) project for taking advantage of most of AMD64 while keeping pointers as 32bit to conserve memory