|yup! email@example.com.Virginia.EDU (1991-08-18)|
|Where would you like to spend that resource? (WAS: yup!) firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-19)|
|Re: Where would you like to spend that resource? (WAS: yup!) email@example.com.Virginia.EDU (1991-08-21)|
|Re: Where would you like to spend that resource? (WAS: yup!) firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-08-22)|
|From:||email@example.com.Virginia.EDU (William Wulf)|
|Date:||Sun, 18 Aug 91 08:42:40 EDT|
>[Wulf wrote the Bliss book nearly 20 years ago. It'd be interesting to
>find out if he still feels the same way. -John]
Maybe more so, in fact.
If the history of computing teaches us anything, it should be that our
demand/desire for functionality far outstrips the computing capacity
available to us. When we started the Bliss/11 compiler we were both
exhilerated by, and cramped by that hot new 64KB/200KIPS PDP11 in the lab. I
feel exactly the same way about the 16MB/20MIPS machine that's on my desk
now. All thats changed is my expectation of the level of service that I get
from it. I fully expect to feel the same way about the GB/GIPS machine that I
get next time around.
Given that we're always pushing the envelope, it isn't really a question of
how fast a program runs -- but rather how much function we can deliver with
the resources available. The person that said
"... but I can speak for myself: I am willing to give up
substantial speed of execution (a factor of 2, to pick a
number), even in the final product, in order to gain productivity. "
is missing a point, I think. He/she isn't giving up *anything*; his/her
customer is. The customer is either giving up better functionality in this
product, or has lost the opportunity to do something else with the resources
So, yup. I feel the same way 20 years later.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.