Re: future computers (sorta OT)
> Dear MISC readers:
>
> Greg Alexander wrote:
> > That is, allowing the experts to be mostly ignorant. It's assumed that
> > everything done by those who really bu[ilt the system works perfectly so
> > there's no good reason to look under that level of the hood. [snip]
>
> > software. Even the experts only think of system-level components, they
> > don't worry about program code or even act as if they are aware of it --
> > they certainly know nothing of gates or transistors.
>
> I would say that what makes StarTrek computing interesting
> is that they understand the principles well enought to
> build a futuristic computer out of primitive components. I
> completely disagree that what is important is that they
> don't need to understand what is under the hood. Quite
> the opposite. What is under the hood must be extrememly
> simple and easy to understand unlike the machines we have
> today with 50 million microscopic stone knives and bearskins
> connected together in an unimaginable mess and driven by
> an unimaginable mess of hundreds of megabytes of code to
> do simple things.
That is what I was trying to point out - that it *must* be extremely simple
and easy. I agree with Jeff. But Greg makes a valid point, that they don't
have to worry about program code. They use already designed algorithms to
accomplish extremely complicated tasks. Both of you are right. The reason
that the "experts" only have to worry about the system level components is
because of the consistency in the design. When you use a higher level Forth
word in your code, you can depend on it's reliability because you know that
all the words that it consists of are simple and follow the same plan.
> The sixties were a time of serious visible consumerism.
> We were told that things would expand forever at the same
> rate that they did after WWII. We were told that people
> had two cars in the garage and chicken in every pot in the
> sixties and that things would continue this way into the
> future. We were told that simple projections showed that
> by the time we were 50 we would all have two flying cars
> in the garage and only work 5 hours a week.
The Jetsons. :0) Remember when the Jetsons met the Flinstones...
> With computers we still see a large group of people suggesting
> that with computers efficiency isn't as issue. For some reason
> they have this absurd idea that technology is free, and
> infinite. The fact is that we have limited resources and
> the only place it seems that people are still proud of being
> wasteful is with their computers. It is a fashion and status
> issue.
I remember one of the first things my Programming II instructor said - that
memory was cheap and we didn't have to worry about keeping the code small.
It was good to just write similar code over and over again in different
functions because it was faster. He also liked us to have x amount of
functions whether we needed them or not. C++ is quite the confusing
language...
>
> > I can't believe that they don't realize that
> > instead of investing billions into their new fab processes that
> > they could simply investigate more thoroughly what can be done
> > with their old ones.
>
> Well with all that dancing around in moon suits in their fab
> plans making chips faster than they can sell them they don't have
> much time for thinking about totally different things. ;-)
I still have nightmares from those commercials... I'm not sure which
advertising department is worse - Intel's or Microsofts.
>
> There is an Intel plant I drive by on the road these days. I
> had to pull off one day to get a closer look. I have never
> seen anything like it. Totally awe inspiring. The problem I have
> is that given the number and size of the buildings I didn't see
> the parking lot for the million employees who must work at
> that site. Maybe they are just storing a few cubic miles of
> Pentium chips in those buildings. :-)
Nah, it's probably just one big Pentium chip. The Pentium IV. ;0)
