From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 8011dd38 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:51:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id EC584A1B36; Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:51:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C906A1849; Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:51:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2A887A1849; Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:51:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4836A1815 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:51:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id 416D135E130; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:51:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:51:26 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: tfb@tfeb.org Message-ID: <20180629175126.GB10867@mcvoy.com> References: <81277CC3-3C4A-49B8-8720-CFAD22BB28F8@bitblocks.com> <20180628141538.GB663@thunk.org> <20180628144017.GB21688@mcvoy.com> <20180628105538.65f82615@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <20180628145825.GE21688@mcvoy.com> <2B710879-7659-47A4-AA86-03F232F7B78B@tfeb.org> <20180628160202.GF21688@mcvoy.com> <79022674-0FFA-4B1B-8A27-4C403D51540E@tfeb.org> <20180628170955.GH21688@mcvoy.com> <8881414B-FF5C-4BD9-B518-AD22366DE4BC@tfeb.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8881414B-FF5C-4BD9-B518-AD22366DE4BC@tfeb.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] PDP-11 legacy, C, and modern architectures X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 04:32:59PM +0100, tfb@tfeb.org wrote: > On 28 Jun 2018, at 18:09, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > I'm not sure how people keep missing the original point. Which was: > > the market won't choose a bunch of wimpy cpus when it can get faster > > ones. It wasn't about the physics (which I'm not arguing with), it > > was about a choice between lots of wimpy cpus and a smaller number of > > fast cpus. The market wants the latter, as Ted said, Sun bet heavily > > on the former and is no more. > > [I said I wouldn't reply more: I'm weak.] > > I think we have been talking at cross-purposes, which is probably > my fault. I think you've been using 'wimpy' to mean 'intentionally > slower than they could be' while I have been using it to mean 'of very > tiny computational power compared to the power of the whole system'. > Your usage is probably more correct in terms of the way the term has > been used historically. Not "intentionally" as "let me slow this down" but as in "it's faster and cheaper to make a slower cpu so I'll just give you more of them". The market has shown, repeatedly, that more slow cpus are not as fun as less faster cpus. It's not a hard concept and I struggle to understand why it's a point to discuss. > But I think my usage tells you something important: that the performance > of individual cores will, inevitably, become increasingly tiny compared > to the performance of the system they are in .... Yeah, so what? That wasn't the point being discussed though you and Perry keep pushing it.