From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: clemc@ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:26:40 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] OT: critical Intel design flaw In-Reply-To: <20180103134358.3F16818C098@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20180103134358.3F16818C098@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: below.. On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > I'm highly amused by the irony. Intel throws bazillions of transistors at > these hyper-complex CPUs in an attempt to make them as fast as possible - > and > (probably because of the complexity) missed a bug, the fix for which > involves... slowing things way down! > ​+1 however... I think there is a corollary ​ > > I wonder how many other bugs are lurking in these hyper-complex designs? > Didn't anyone at Intel stop to think that complexity is bad, in and of > itself? > ​Exactly....​ ​ and a loud "Amen Brother Chiappa​ ." ​ IIRC this is part of the argument Dykstra made with the THE paper years ago, Parnas in his information hiding paper -- i.e. why microkernels and proper layering are a good idea. Keep is simple and do one thing well/protect yourself against other subsystems not being 100%. Linux and Winders are are bad a the processor. ​Yup microkernels are a tad slower and have more overhead, and might (probably will) cost a little more. But I really do think simplicity beats complexity and I'll pay a bit in over head to keep it simple. The problem of course for my employers over the years, is that many people (most ​people ​ probably) ​ ​ do not think me ​ and follow their wallet on the fastest for the cheapest​ ;-) Clem​ ᐧ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: