4 ms·
32-bit is enough for a 4GB typed array, which doesn't seem too bad. I imagine eventually it will be limiting, but not in the near future.
by azakai 12y ago
32-bit is enough for a 4GB typed array, which doesn't seem too bad. I imagine eventually it will be limiting, but not in the near future.
- AceJohnny2 12y ago32-bits should be enough for everyone! Sorry, I couldn't help myself ;) (and I know your "not in the near future" makes the comparison incorrect anyhow)
- Dylan16807 12y agoThing is it's easy to need more than XX bits of stuff total, it's a lot rarer to want that in a single array in a high level language.
- userbinator 12y ago32-bit CPUs lasted for several decades in desktop computers, and I don't see it going away anytime soon. Personally, I think a lot of what average users are using computers for at the moment wouldn't need anything more than that. In most cases, 4GB is still a lot of memory... but it's easy to waste.
- angersock 12y agoI mean, the super gnarly thing here is eventually emulating an MMU in JS, right? Like, this almost gets us back to the nastiness of segmented memory models--you end up having the 32-bit addressable typed array as the "physical" memory, and then has the VMMU (virtual memory-management unit?) handle mapping from a virtual address (maybe a string?) to one of the physical addresses, and handling pagefaults. Actually, that sounds kind of sexy, if anyone wants to bullshit on a PoC hack, shoot me an email.
- RussianCow 12y agoReminds me of this talk by Gary Bernhardt: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of-javascript https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death...