4 ms·

It doesn't solve "the whole problem". It won't help with any sort of batch processing, nor with the latest game trying to squeeze every bit of performance out o

It doesn't solve "the whole problem". It won't help with any sort of batch processing, nor with the latest game trying to squeeze every bit of performance out of the hardware. Worse, it may actually encourage bad behavior by applications. We already have problems with applications draining batteries unreasonably fast on mobile devices because they implement features in ways that look "fast enough" interactively, but under the hood are an unnecessary power drain. Now such inefficiencies can be even less obvious! There's a lot more to practical application of this than tossing some wax on a chip.

6ren 13y ago
The "whole problem" doesn't mean "every problem". It means taking a step back and seeing what the user is really trying to accomplish, and everything that is needed for that problem to be solved - as opposed to myopically seeing just one aspect of that problem. Some extreme examples of whole solutions: Edison establishing a power generator and power line infrastructure, not just a light bulb (Musk's Tesla is doing similar now); Birdseye establishing freezers in supermarkets, not just selling frozen fish. Sometimes, you'll focus on one specific user problem, which can even mean removing features. BTW: I'm taking the term from Crossing the Chasm (Geoffrey Moore). Of course, what you say is true about continuous loads, and also battery drainage for bursty loads. It's not a solution to every usage pattern, and as the article mentions, it's around 10 years away. I love changing problems to see unexpected ways of solving them - even if it does take years to realise the vision.