6 ms·

>For one thing, it means you cannot work with files larger than maybe 3 GB, or even 3 1 GB files, in a 32 bit process. Serious question : is it bad to assume a

by rtpg 12y ago

>For one thing, it means you cannot work with files larger than maybe 3 GB, or even 3 1 GB files, in a 32 bit process. Serious question : is it bad to assume a 64-bit capable running environment for developer's computers nowadays? I feel like it's better to run with something simple (and way less error prone) if the cost is some 32-bit issues like stated. Granted, vim is a special case, since we're running this through ssh on servers or whatnot. Lots of really good cases mentioned in this post, though, bet you make a good debugger

ridiculous_fish 12y ago
There's definitely still new Linux systems that are 32 bit (Raspberry Pi, etc) though probably not many as a developer computer. Maybe Crouton on a Chromebook? Anyways you have a point about the simplicity of mmap. Reading up on the suckless philosophy, it does seem to fit.
- mjcohen 12y ago
  I think Crouton installs 64-bit Linux.
chriswarbo 12y ago
> Serious question : is it bad to assume a 64-bit capable running environment for developer's computers nowadays? There's at least one counter-example, since all my machines are 32bit. Is there anything in particular about software developers which makes you think they're more likely to grind on the hardware upgrade treadmill? I would have thought the opposite. The software I use (linux + xmonad + bash + text editor) has far lower requirements than that my family and friends use (various versions of Windows, online video players, antivirus, games, etc.) I tend to give my hardware more respect than my friends and family too, who are much more likely to drop machines, drop/spill things on to machines, rotate them with hard disks spinning, put stress on hinges or weak points (eg. carrying a laptop by the screen), insert/remove peripherals in mechanically stressful ways, etc. I'm also more able to investigate and fix problems, rather than eg. buying a new computer when the hard drive gets full. My current machines all use AMD K7 chips (Athlon/Duron), so I've built up a collection of compatible CPUs, RAM, IDE cables/drives etc. from dead machines to fix any issues I get with the remaining ones. I'm perfectly happy with my hardware, so I see no reason to "upgrade"; rather, I've seen news feeds full of compatibility wars, eg. amd64/IA64, IDEx/eIDE, SATA/PATA, HDMI/Thunderbolt/DisplayPort/whatever, BluRay/HDDVD, etc. none of which I've had to care about.
- rtpg 12y ago
  It's been 11 years since the widespread introduction of 64-bit processors in consumer hardware. I think it's a pretty safe assumption to make that a vast majority of people are using 64-bit-capable machines. There are advantages to the "hardware upgrade" treadmill if you're on a laptop (not many laptops got 9 hours of battery life in 2003), and if you open an IDE from time to time, or do heavy consumer-facing web development, having a computer from the last decade is useful. Also easier to run a high-res multi-monitor setup if you have some good speed behind that. It's possible to be good and capable on the machines you're citing, but the overwhelming majority of software developers (even the ones using vim/emacs) are not of the linux + xmonad type.

by rtpg 12y ago

ridiculous_fish 12y ago

There's definitely still new Linux systems that are 32 bit (Raspberry Pi, etc) though probably not many as a developer computer. Maybe Crouton on a Chromebook? Anyways you have a point about the simplicity of mmap. Reading up on the suckless philosophy, it does seem to fit.

mjcohen 12y ago
I think Crouton installs 64-bit Linux.

chriswarbo 12y ago

> Serious question : is it bad to assume a 64-bit capable running environment for developer's computers nowadays? There's at least one counter-example, since all my machines are 32bit. Is there anything in particular about software developers which makes you think they're more likely to grind on the hardware upgrade treadmill? I would have thought the opposite. The software I use (linux + xmonad + bash + text editor) has far lower requirements than that my family and friends use (various versions of Windows, online video players, antivirus, games, etc.) I tend to give my hardware more respect than my friends and family too, who are much more likely to drop machines, drop/spill things on to machines, rotate them with hard disks spinning, put stress on hinges or weak points (eg. carrying a laptop by the screen), insert/remove peripherals in mechanically stressful ways, etc. I'm also more able to investigate and fix problems, rather than eg. buying a new computer when the hard drive gets full. My current machines all use AMD K7 chips (Athlon/Duron), so I've built up a collection of compatible CPUs, RAM, IDE cables/drives etc. from dead machines to fix any issues I get with the remaining ones. I'm perfectly happy with my hardware, so I see no reason to "upgrade"; rather, I've seen news feeds full of compatibility wars, eg. amd64/IA64, IDEx/eIDE, SATA/PATA, HDMI/Thunderbolt/DisplayPort/whatever, BluRay/HDDVD, etc. none of which I've had to care about.

rtpg 12y ago
It's been 11 years since the widespread introduction of 64-bit processors in consumer hardware. I think it's a pretty safe assumption to make that a vast majority of people are using 64-bit-capable machines. There are advantages to the "hardware upgrade" treadmill if you're on a laptop (not many laptops got 9 hours of battery life in 2003), and if you open an IDE from time to time, or do heavy consumer-facing web development, having a computer from the last decade is useful. Also easier to run a high-res multi-monitor setup if you have some good speed behind that. It's possible to be good and capable on the machines you're citing, but the overwhelming majority of software developers (even the ones using vim/emacs) are not of the linux + xmonad type.