The question that isn’t be asked, but should be, is if this idea is so great then why were none of the several prior generations of similar computers successful

The question that isn’t be asked, but should be, is if this idea is so great then why were none of the several prior generations of similar computers successful? To be clear about where my perspective is coming from, I was one of the people doing graph algorithm research on exotic graph processors many years ago and the old Tera machines mentioned in the article are one of my favorite computing architectures of all time. I am predisposed to liking the tech but I also have a realistic view of the tradeoffs. These architectures were killed by two separate issues. The first is that very few programmers seem to develop an intuitive sense of how to design algorithms and data structures that are efficient on these architectures. Real-world performance is poor because the software is poor. The second, and more permanent state of affairs, is that along the way researchers developed new algorithms and software architectures that run on ordinary CPUs only a little less efficiently, while taking advantage of the faster and much cheaper commodity silicon. Why would you buy exotic silicon when you can call Dell? There is a community of diehard graph silicon enthusiasts inside the US DoD who continue to fund the development of processors like the one in the article, so we get a new design every few years. And it is cool tech! But if I were building a business around graph processing, I’d use commodity silicon without a second thought. Not that I wouldn’t love to play with one of these new graph computers just to see what they can do.