On Friday 02 March 2007 12:58, Carlos E. R. wrote: > The Friday 2007-03-02 at 12:19 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: > > On Friday 02 March 2007 11:56, Carlos E. R. wrote: > > > The Friday 2007-03-02 at 11:41 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: > > > > > 2. It is WRONG to rely on the speed of new hardware to make > > > > > up for bad programming. > > > > > > > > The very notion is nonsense. > > > > > > I don't think so. It is quite true, in general. > > > > Que es mas macho? Pineapple or knife? > > -- Laurie Anderson > > Never heard that.
Young'un, eh? I had the good fortune of seeing her perform live twice and attend one of her art installations at UCLA. I don't know what she's up to, now. > > It's nonsense since there's no relationship between program/ming > > quality and hardware speed. If anything, faster hardware (and > > especially multi-processor or multi-core systems) can expose > > certain kinds of programming errors that remain latent in > > lower-performance hardware. > > The relation is that with faster hardware programmers don't have to > trim their programs. They can allow their programs to be huge, > repetitive, non-optimized, because the hardware is faster, disks are > bigger, and the diference will be hardly noticed. That was not how I understood the complaint. He reported an instability. That's not a matter of program or programming efficiency, but rather one of correctness. And bug manifestation and hardware speed are, if anything, negatively correlated. > -- > Cheers, > Carlos E. R. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
