vernrVingingIt

5 ms·

1.
by vernrVingingIt 10mo ago
Sure. The hang up here is SWEs belief those abstractions must be stored as some syntax they know; C, Python, RoR, Linux, Elixir... whatever. There is zero obligation to capture the concept of memory safety in traditional software notation.
2.
by vernrVingingIt 10mo ago
You don't see the connection because you weren't invited to participate in numerous discussions where these connections are made explicitly via detailed analysis. I have more to do than refresh HN all day, going for brevity here.
3.
by vernrVingingIt 10mo ago
I meant they aren't sticking with obligation to software history. Of course they have not dumped their own methods.
4.
by vernrVingingIt 10mo ago
Easy; endlessly big little numbers. "Endless" until the machine runs out of real memory addresses anyway. You all really think engineers at Samsung, nVidia, etc whose job it is to generalize software into mathematical models have
5.
by vernrVingingIt 10mo ago
You all really believe PhDs and principle hardware engineers at Samsung, nVidia, etc have not worked around any abstract problem you all can come up with? We need a layer of abstraction not endless layers. Nothing says unearned wisdom tha
6.
by vernrVingingIt 10mo ago
Well starting over from first principles is exactly what the chip design and manufacture industry is doing. We also cannot afford, in non-finance terms, to burn all the resources on conservation of the existing software mess. Automation is
7.
by vernrVingingIt 10mo ago
Try almost 30 years in electrical engineering. I know exactly what those layers of abstraction are used for. Why so many? Jobs making layers of abstraction. But all of them are dev friendly means of modeling memory states for the CPU to wat
8.
by vernrVingingIt 10mo ago
Bachelors in electrical engineering, masters in math; elastic structures applied to modeling electrical systems. Started career in late 90s designing boards for telecom companies network backbones.