> > I guess my point is that I can see the point of not > > worrying too much, but I don't buy into believing > > things will change in the future. Arg! Of course things > > will change, but, um. Well... I guess don't go around > > smoking, thinking that, "what the hell, by the time I > > get cancer, we'll have the technology to..." Or you > > can, hell, I do sometimes, and it could be true, but > > the safest bet is to avoid smoking. :-/ > > I don't think that's actually analogous to my development process.
Oh, I wasn't implying that it was. Just talk'n man, I've seen your stuff, it's good. Hell, you'd shudder if you saw my stuff. *shudder* So I'm not exactly running around saying "oh just throw whatever > abstraction you want in there, 'cause the hardware will support it in > 20 years" (and even if I were, the Cancer analogy is bad because we > have no real proof of progress toward a cure for cancer, whereas we > have definitive and continual proof of the progress of our hardware). (-: It was a bad analogy. I'd take the progress of hardware, and throw in the progress of software. Can you BELIEVE the rate of development? The warez are evolving at some kind of proportional rate to the hardware. What I'm saying is that there is a need to consider the progress of > hardware when evaluating the long-term viability of abstractions in > our software. Something that is not viable in today's market because > its poor performance makes it unable to support a profitable > application may very well be a major bread-winner in twenty years for > its ability to help programmers produce more "agile" code. Thus it's > also bad form to discount an idea that failed once before for > performance reasons without first testing it in combination with new > hardware and new complementary technologies/techniques. I don't know about the 20 year span... but I totally agree. And I guess, if you think about it, there might be tons of good ideas out there that are 10-20 years old, and were just ahead of their time. Hmmm. For sure like 5 probably. > Take one look at the gamer market and tell me that > > people aren't still concerned with shaving .00002 > > off of some random shade routine. > > :-) Thank god. I kind of dig that. > > Some of us. :) But I don't work in the gaming market... and I'm glad I > don't. :) Heh. Depends on what area. I could settle for one of those heads who just goes to E3 or whatever and tells everyone how cool everything is, and, wow, look at this swag! =] That's a market that programs for stuff that's not even available at the time, or so I hear. Maybe not programs, but dependant on the fact that technology will increase. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:237664 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
