4 ms·
Compilers and test suits do scale (at least for C/C++ and Rust, which is what I work with). But I think the parent comment referred to consumer applications: ga
by VorpalWay 7mo ago
Compilers and test suits do scale (at least for C/C++ and Rust, which is what I work with). But I think the parent comment referred to consumer applications: games, word processing, light browsing, ...
(Though games these days scale better than they used to, but only up to a to a point.)
I find that most tools I write for my own use can be made to scale with cores, or run so fast that the overhead of starting threads is longer than the program runtime. But I write that in Rust which makes parallelism easy. If I wrote that code in C++ I would probably not bother with trying to parallelize.
- rafaelmn 7mo agoBut those tools aren't really compute bound anyway - you're not buying a workstation to do them, you're getting a consumer laptop or a tablet.
- loeg 7mo agoAnd that consumer device should have ECC! That's the whole discussion here.
- zadikian 7mo agoIt's confusing because a few comments up is "for the vast majority of people single core performance is all they care about, it's also cheaper" which is unrelated to ECC.
- loeg 7mo agoI think it's coherent -- it's an argument for why most people don't want to buy Workstation class products just to get ECC. (Prices scale with core count. Not linearly, but still.)
- rafaelmn 7mo agoWhy ? If your device is a thin client for web services/gaming the risk of bitflips/bad ram is a minor annoyance.
- loeg 7mo agoI disagree with your handwaving bitflips away as a minor annoyance. Consumers don't love software crashing, even if they don't have any data they care about. Imagine ECC was free -- would you rather have free ECC and no bitflips, or no ECC and bitflips? It's hard to imagine choosing bitflips.
- throwaway85825 7mo agoECC would save an unbelievable amount of labor. A shocking number of people have jobs looking at various logs.