5 ms·

The physical world has peaked, in every metric. That makes software harder. Just wait until you can't buy a new computer just like that. Stick to vanilla Java

by bullen 4y ago

The physical world has peaked, in every metric. That makes software harder. Just wait until you can't buy a new computer just like that. Stick to vanilla Java/C+/HTML(5)/JSON/OpenGL/AL and make something great and you'll be fine. Note + is NOT a typo: it means C++ compiler with mostly C syntax. I only use string, stream and namespaces. Classes very rarely. Don't download things that are >1GB.

Havoc 4y ago
>The physical world has peaked, in every metric. How do you figure that? Seems to me that things are still rapidly changing. Starlink, fusion, JWST, computer hardware, 3D printing etc...loads still happening.
- bullen 4y ago
  All statistics show 2016 being peak in population growth in the western world. Acceleration stopped 1968. CPU improvements stalled around 2012. GPU around 1030 so in 2017. Energy is the master resource.
  - Havoc 4y ago
    You genuinely believe a CPU from 2023 to be no better than one from 2012?
    - eimrine 4y ago
      I really believe in that. We used to have 4 cores in 2012 plus and this is slightly different than 2 cores (hardware cryptorgaphy in 2012th processor was more noticeable for me than extra cores). Modern processors eats significantly less energy and can hold significantly more of RAM and that's all I can notice.
      - CyberDildonics 4y ago
        We used to have 4 cores in 2012 plus and this is slightly different than 2 cores It is double actually. Also there are CPUs with 64 cores now. Also in 2012 there were CPUs with more than 4 cores. that's all I can notice What you can notice is not real information when speed, cores and energy use can be quantified.
        eimrine 4y ago
        We also used to have 4 cores in 2009 but that was very unstable. BTW, for modern multitasking computers, the main jump in performance comes from going from a single processor to dual processor. Than Amdahl's law neglects the difference. > What you can notice is not real information when speed, cores and energy use can be quantified. Single-core performance is totally the same, the number of cores does not change anything visible and energy use seems like the only outcome of 10 years spent from 2012.
        CyberDildonics 4y ago
        We also used to have 4 cores in 2009 but that was very unstable. This is nonsense Than Amdahl's law neglects the difference. Then you don't understand "Amdahl's law". It is very basic and only about parts of software that aren't multithreaded becoming a bottleneck. This sounds like desperate pessimism. Single-core performance is totally the same, This is not true either and you could look at benchmarks to see it. the number of cores does not change anything visible Disable hyperthreading and all your cores in the bios, then run multithreaded software and say the same thing.
        eimrine 4y ago
        > This is nonsense Core 2 duo Quad from 2007+ used to have 2 L2 cashes (not 4) and no L3 and task manager of Windows refused to see more than 2 cores, but for some rare tasks Quad was perfect such as playing GTA4. That is just my memories, feel free to correct me if you see me mistaken. > Then you don't understand "Amdahl's law". It is very basic and only about parts of software that aren't multithreaded becoming a bottleneck. Everything except of browser is not multithreaded in 2023, for example a garbage collecting of interpreted languages. > This is not true either and you could look at benchmarks to see it. I have a heavy single-threaded application which I need to run 24/7 and I still use Pentium 4 because no modern computer can make it 2x faster. > Disable hyperthreading and all your cores in the bios, then run multithreaded software and say the same thing. I mean starting from 2 cores the number of cores does not add anything visible.
    - bullen 4y ago
      Not by much, if you count in the energy used to make new CPUs, and the waste you crate by not using an old one; you are better off using an Ivy Bridge than a newest AMD/Intel. I also believe the older stuff is better built in terms of longevity if you cool them properly. I also know the new ones have more crap in them that will allow Intel/Microsoft to block things when they need money.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    You should get together with https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=eimrine https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=eimrine since you both say the same thing at the same time.
  - mixermachine 4y ago
    CPUs have improved so much with AMDs chiplet push. I can now buy an eight core AMD/Intel CPU for 300 $/€ that the people of 2012 could only dream about. This thing enables me to have my complete production environment on my machine and develop faster. Apart from that programs in general run very fast. I don't want to go back to 2012.
whitehexagon 4y ago
I think it is also because even with the more vanilla languages and APIs, they have also become moving targets. Java 1.4 felt like a sweet spot, similar C99, WebGL2/HTML5 etc. It seems like we are unable to say 'job done' and feature freeze them. And imagine the software stability if that was paired with a 5 year stable hardware platform. Maybe that is what you mean? that we approach a point with a 'last computer' that will be forever more optimized?
- bullen 4y ago
  Yes, exactly: http://move.rupy.se/file/last_computer.png http://move.rupy.se/file/last_computer.png

by bullen 4y ago

Havoc 4y ago

>The physical world has peaked, in every metric. How do you figure that? Seems to me that things are still rapidly changing. Starlink, fusion, JWST, computer hardware, 3D printing etc...loads still happening.

bullen 4y ago
All statistics show 2016 being peak in population growth in the western world. Acceleration stopped 1968. CPU improvements stalled around 2012. GPU around 1030 so in 2017. Energy is the master resource.
- Havoc 4y ago
  You genuinely believe a CPU from 2023 to be no better than one from 2012?
  - eimrine 4y ago
    I really believe in that. We used to have 4 cores in 2012 plus and this is slightly different than 2 cores (hardware cryptorgaphy in 2012th processor was more noticeable for me than extra cores). Modern processors eats significantly less energy and can hold significantly more of RAM and that's all I can notice.
    - CyberDildonics 4y ago
      We used to have 4 cores in 2012 plus and this is slightly different than 2 cores It is double actually. Also there are CPUs with 64 cores now. Also in 2012 there were CPUs with more than 4 cores. that's all I can notice What you can notice is not real information when speed, cores and energy use can be quantified.
      - eimrine 4y ago
        We also used to have 4 cores in 2009 but that was very unstable. BTW, for modern multitasking computers, the main jump in performance comes from going from a single processor to dual processor. Than Amdahl's law neglects the difference. > What you can notice is not real information when speed, cores and energy use can be quantified. Single-core performance is totally the same, the number of cores does not change anything visible and energy use seems like the only outcome of 10 years spent from 2012.
        CyberDildonics 4y ago
        We also used to have 4 cores in 2009 but that was very unstable. This is nonsense Than Amdahl's law neglects the difference. Then you don't understand "Amdahl's law". It is very basic and only about parts of software that aren't multithreaded becoming a bottleneck. This sounds like desperate pessimism. Single-core performance is totally the same, This is not true either and you could look at benchmarks to see it. the number of cores does not change anything visible Disable hyperthreading and all your cores in the bios, then run multithreaded software and say the same thing.
        eimrine 4y ago
        > This is nonsense Core 2 duo Quad from 2007+ used to have 2 L2 cashes (not 4) and no L3 and task manager of Windows refused to see more than 2 cores, but for some rare tasks Quad was perfect such as playing GTA4. That is just my memories, feel free to correct me if you see me mistaken. > Then you don't understand "Amdahl's law". It is very basic and only about parts of software that aren't multithreaded becoming a bottleneck. Everything except of browser is not multithreaded in 2023, for example a garbage collecting of interpreted languages. > This is not true either and you could look at benchmarks to see it. I have a heavy single-threaded application which I need to run 24/7 and I still use Pentium 4 because no modern computer can make it 2x faster. > Disable hyperthreading and all your cores in the bios, then run multithreaded software and say the same thing. I mean starting from 2 cores the number of cores does not add anything visible.
  - bullen 4y ago
    Not by much, if you count in the energy used to make new CPUs, and the waste you crate by not using an old one; you are better off using an Ivy Bridge than a newest AMD/Intel. I also believe the older stuff is better built in terms of longevity if you cool them properly. I also know the new ones have more crap in them that will allow Intel/Microsoft to block things when they need money.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  You should get together with https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=eimrine https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=eimrine since you both say the same thing at the same time.
- mixermachine 4y ago
  CPUs have improved so much with AMDs chiplet push. I can now buy an eight core AMD/Intel CPU for 300 $/€ that the people of 2012 could only dream about. This thing enables me to have my complete production environment on my machine and develop faster. Apart from that programs in general run very fast. I don't want to go back to 2012.

whitehexagon 4y ago

I think it is also because even with the more vanilla languages and APIs, they have also become moving targets. Java 1.4 felt like a sweet spot, similar C99, WebGL2/HTML5 etc. It seems like we are unable to say 'job done' and feature freeze them. And imagine the software stability if that was paired with a 5 year stable hardware platform. Maybe that is what you mean? that we approach a point with a 'last computer' that will be forever more optimized?

bullen 4y ago
Yes, exactly: http://move.rupy.se/file/last_computer.png http://move.rupy.se/file/last_computer.png