4 ms·
Yeah, I really feel like we're in a "horseless carriage" or "radio with pictures" era for computing. We have incredibly powerful machines available. But the dom
by wpietri 3y ago
Yeah, I really feel like we're in a "horseless carriage" or "radio with pictures" era for computing. We have incredibly powerful machines available. But the dominant paradigm for managing that power is to slice it up into things that simulate much less powerful processors in software environments designed for a shared 1970s university department minicomputer.
In many ways I love it, of course. It's what I grew up on, and I'm sure I'll have a small Linux cluster in the retirement home, because that's how computers are "supposed to be". But I think the old paradigm has only lasted so long because we have so much computing power to burn.
- jaystraw 3y agoI'm not sure I understand. When the "old paradigm" was new, computing power was much more limited. They couldn't afford to "burn" any computing power. But it's only stuck around, because now we have more computing power? That doesn't make sense
- wpietri 3y agoYou might read some Kuhn. Paradigms change when the old one becomes unsupportable. But the vast increase in computing power per dollar means we can waste a lot of it without it being economically uncomfortable. Well, most of us. A good check on this is a podcast where Dr Kevin Bowers is interviewed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlzWM5GKQT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlzWM5GKQT8 He works for a financial trading firm, where the competitive nature of it means that every processor cycle counts. For him, older paradigms are perplexing and irritating, because they are major barriers to getting the most out of the hardware.