4 ms·
A function is never arbitrarily large, it's made of a bounded number of sub-expressions and those sub-expressions can be checked independently. CPUs are extrao
by DanWaterworth 14y ago
A function is never arbitrarily large, it's made of a bounded number of sub-expressions and those sub-expressions can be checked independently.
CPUs are extraordinarily wasteful. The reason I think a processor like this might work better is because it could do a lot more work in parallel.
- jerf 14y agoA CPU can do anything. Silicon is turing complete. The question is whether it can do it more efficiently than some rather well-tuned, if suboptimally-architected, processors. It's a high bar to leap, despite substantial rhetoric to the contrary. (I believe it to be leapable, but it's not easy.)
- mwcampbell 14y ago> CPUs are extraordinarily wasteful. I've seen this claim before, and I've even accepted it at face value before. But it seems to me that it isn't adequately supported by evidence. What evidence do we have that a substantially more efficient (therefore less wasteful) CPU architecture is possible?
- knz42 14y agocf the discussion in the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5559282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5559282