4 ms·
Given how long it takes for compilers to mature, by the time it's ready I didn't think anyone will care about x86. Similarly for c++11 vs 17. No?
by shipp02 2y ago
Given how long it takes for compilers to mature, by the time it's ready I didn't think anyone will care about x86. Similarly for c++11 vs 17. No?
- Rochus 2y agoWell, for all applications which don't require to addres more than 4 GB memory, a 64 bit machine is overkill. This especially applies to embedded systems (which make up the majority of all systems). This is unlikely to change for the next fifty years.
- account42 2y agoOverkill doesn't mean that it won't be the norm. Overspeccing can be much cheaper than keeping niche architectures alive.
- Rochus 2y agoWell, if the consumer market thinks that 64 bit architectures are a core benefit (for whatever irrational reason) and are willing to pay for it, industry will/does deliver. It's still overkill for all but a few applications. But I never saw in my more than thrity years in embedded systems that a company did well on a long term when wasting money for non-essential capabilities.