I hate to break it to you, but being able to "acheive similar benchmarks to a P4 at 2/3 the Mhz and 1/3 the die size" is pretty much useless in the real word. (because faster clock speed can mroe than make up for it, and die size isn't that important at all).
There's all these alleged reasons to build a "clean" architecture, but in the real world it just doesn't seem to have any benefits.
This is an age-old argument in software/hardware design and the sad fact is that beauty doesn't necessarily get you much of anything. Sometimes the ugly solution just works better.
Um, that DSP is not a general purpose processor. Get it to do everything an x86 does, and it'll slow down.
Or you could get by with the simpler instruction set and just do multiple operations as needed (since it all comes down to a few logic operations anyways). This is back to the old CISC vs. RISC debate, and despite how much RISC appeals to my wanna-be-designer sensibilities, nobody has shown it to be a superior solution when applied to a general purpose problem like running a full OS and a mix of applications.
Simply put, if it were that simple someone would have pulled it off by now.
And obviously this didn't translate into any useful benefit for Apple, IBM, or the users. Again, I ask what is the practical benefit of a "clean design"?
And to express my sympathies, let me say that I am an artistic type, so I greatly appreciate elegance in design. In a way I am bothered by the fact that the PPC didn't leave the x86 architecture in the dust. But I try to temper my love of elegance with practicality, not worry so much about the whether the die etchings are pretty on a purely functional piece of equiptment like a CPU.
You know, I remember people saying this at the time. And they said the same thing about x86. And you know what? They were wrong... probably about both.
Intel has shown us what most good developers know: that if you have something that works but sucks you can usually get further building on it than starting over from scratch.
I wonder what the 68K line would be like today if the designers had been clever and worked with what they had instead of being prima donnas and wanting to start over with a "fresh" design.
It's funny how that happens... something could be said about evolution vs. revolution. It reminds me of all the times I've done a "clean rewrite" only to end up with something that just wasn't any better. Sometimes even worse.
A lot of people won't give up, though: in the face of enormous evidence they'll still assure themselves that because something is "new" and "clean" it's somehow better.
So if x86, with all it's hacks and kludges, is still faster and more efficient than these so called "clean" designs, what the heck is the point of having a clean design?
I guess I was jumbling "correctness" in with "consistency". Sloppy language of me, but in spirit I think it makes sense. An inconsistent system seems incorrect to me. Which is why I think we usually opt for incomplete systems instead, since they're still so darn useful.
I'm using Safari Version 2.0 (412) right now on Tiger (10.4.1) and the test does not render correctly. Is this some unreleased version they're talking about?
Just keep in mind that many people (myself, for one) do not steal music at all. I just like to be able to copy it around for my own convenience and to have tools that allow me to manage my rightfully purchased data as I see fit.
My gripe is when DRM and the DMCA interfere with these otherwise legal and morally acceptiable actions on my part. If there was a way to stop people from stealing music without getting in my way, I'd be all for it. However, there isn't. So I'm against their lame attempts (which always penalize me without actually preventing piracy).
I can make no comment as to how much of a rip off it was -- but why would the movie studios reject it for that? They constantly put out stuff that is a complete rip off.
This site is a great resource, and it looks like the numbers are right to me, based on my Prius II experience.
However, what I'd really like to see is similarly gathered data for traditional cars. Especially for ones in the same size/weight categories. I don't trust the EPA numbers for those either. Well, I trust they measure _something_... but it's like 45MPH on a dynamometer for the highway test, right? Who drives like that? Does it take into account aerodynamics at all?
I guess it would be tougher because very few traditional cars give accurate mileage readouts...
And that is exactly the difference between us. You're an engineer, I'm an architect.... Ultimately, we need each other. Without me, you'd live in a world where everything's a hack. Without you, I'd live in a world with nothing in it:)
That's quite a nice way of looking at it. I accept your description.
One note: I'm an architect at heart -- when I design stuff for myself I want to get it perfect. I've just never been able to maintain that at work.
I don't know what planet you are on my friend. I wish I could visit you there:)
By the way, you didn't seem to read my second example properly. If you need it both ways, (a situation that often arises when the real world meets the virtual world) you're going to have to hack it one way or the other and the hack will stay.
I don't believe I've ever come across a piece of widely-used code that didn't have at least a few hacks like this... ones that couldn't be resolved without limiting functionality.
And there are those who would argue that functionality would be best limited in that case. Personally I feel that the code exists to serve a need, not to be pure and pretty. If you feel differently and can convince those around you of such, more power to you.
Oh come on, I said it was just an example. Maybe I'm dealing with a pre-existing system that depends on this setup. Maybe this code is encapsulated in a module and I won't need to do it anywhere else. The point is that the comment elaborated on code that was already "clear" (how much clearer can you get than incrementing a number) in a way that only a comment can.
Have you ever worked in the real world? Ever stayed at a company for more than a couple of years? Then you've got to know what I'm talking about. No matter how perfect you try to design your system you will come across points where you have to do something arbitrary like this. When you do, a comment is invaluable. Heck, I could just has easily have made it:
// the total includes the root node of the tree // since there's an entry for it in the DB, but we don't // want to include it in the count... --total;
Now what am I supposed to do wiseguy? Maybe sometimes I need it included and sometimes I don't. Good design doesn't make comments any less important.
Heh... I would say "no" just because I never took any programming classes! But I do use "we" all the time like that. I don't know why I feel comfortable speaking for the whole team:)
using short, descriptive variable names 'should' be enough as long as the code is well-organized.
Definitely not. No matter how clear your code is, it only gives you an idea of what is going on the small scale. You often need comments to describe your big-picture motivation. But the comments have to be good too.
Here's a classic bad comment:
// add one to the total
++total;
That's useless. But a comment can help:
// the total doesn't count the root node of the tree // (since there's no actual entry in the DB for node "0"), // so we just add that in here...
++total;
No matter how clear you write the code you're not going to get that much understanding without a comment.
It's just a simple example off the top of my head, but that's how I use comments. The code clarity is all that's needed to tell what you are doing, but comments can tell you why you are doing it. You need both for truly maintainable code.
I am appalled by atheists exploiting success of science (which neither presumes nor denies existence of God, so far, at least) to bash religion.
As an athiest, I don't think science puts the nail in religion's coffin. All the scientific explanations for the universe and it's functioning can be accepted as the design of God. And any contradictory passages in the bible can be labled as metaphor.
If anything puts the nail in religion's coffin, it's history.
Religions (at least the popular ones) have failed to help society on the grand scale. They fail to guide. And if they fail to guide then what is their use? Even if the bible really was the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God, it has shown itself to be useless.
Blame it on man's free will or whatever but what's the point? Why should I allow a destructive philosophy to go on without criticism? I don't care what the author's original intent was -- I care only about the fruits of the followers. And by that measure I'd very much like to see most religions questioned and criticized until they adapt or disappear.
The only director who could, in a million years, have done this movie justice is Terry Gilliam. And it would have been even better if he could have made it with Douglas at his side.
There's something about the tone of Brazil that reminds me of Hitchikers. Sam Lowry is a sort of dark world Arthur Dent... and the poking fun at beaurocracy.
Ah well. A tear is wept for unrealized potential. This film will suck.
We can put a pile of high-tech weapons and defense systems in the hands of our troops. It won't make a spit of difference. The issues there are political and social. Decades of killing hasn't made any progress at all. I just gets worse. If we kill people more efficiently that's not very likely to change.
Why do you think there are so many countries that have been terrorized for decadees? Lack of good enough weapons? I would tend to think it runs deeper than that.
This is different from a regular war where you've got a leader of a cohesive nation invading other nations. In that case you can "win". This stuff is based on centuries of internal religious conflict amont the people themselves. It's unlikely we'll make a high enough percentage of the people there happy in the near future.
Ah well. Let's just nuke the whole area and let God sort them out. Because weapons will help. Right?
Memory: get 512MB for normal usage. Anything less and you will be unhappy. This is from my experience, and also what my wife who works at the apple store has seen with customers.
If you're doing some major media stuff (editing huge images, or doing substantial audio/video work) you'll want to get 1GB.
Look for Eccleston to star alongside David Caruso in a film this summer. They play a pair of delusional self-important actors that bumble around Hollywood in search of fame while people ask them "who are you"?
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to break it to you, but being able to "acheive similar benchmarks to a P4 at 2/3 the Mhz and 1/3 the die size" is pretty much useless in the real word. (because faster clock speed can mroe than make up for it, and die size isn't that important at all).
There's all these alleged reasons to build a "clean" architecture, but in the real world it just doesn't seem to have any benefits.
This is an age-old argument in software/hardware design and the sad fact is that beauty doesn't necessarily get you much of anything. Sometimes the ugly solution just works better.
Cheers.
Um, that DSP is not a general purpose processor. Get it to do everything an x86 does, and it'll slow down.
Or you could get by with the simpler instruction set and just do multiple operations as needed (since it all comes down to a few logic operations anyways). This is back to the old CISC vs. RISC debate, and despite how much RISC appeals to my wanna-be-designer sensibilities, nobody has shown it to be a superior solution when applied to a general purpose problem like running a full OS and a mix of applications.
Simply put, if it were that simple someone would have pulled it off by now.
Cheers.
Good thing you said it was a joke... I'm a bit dense and was about to reply that you were off your rocker and give the Itanium as an example :)
And obviously this didn't translate into any useful benefit for Apple, IBM, or the users. Again, I ask what is the practical benefit of a "clean design"?
And to express my sympathies, let me say that I am an artistic type, so I greatly appreciate elegance in design. In a way I am bothered by the fact that the PPC didn't leave the x86 architecture in the dust. But I try to temper my love of elegance with practicality, not worry so much about the whether the die etchings are pretty on a purely functional piece of equiptment like a CPU.
Cheers.
The 680x0 was not a growable architecture
You know, I remember people saying this at the time. And they said the same thing about x86. And you know what? They were wrong... probably about both.
Intel has shown us what most good developers know: that if you have something that works but sucks you can usually get further building on it than starting over from scratch.
I wonder what the 68K line would be like today if the designers had been clever and worked with what they had instead of being prima donnas and wanting to start over with a "fresh" design.
Cheers.
It's funny how that happens... something could be said about evolution vs. revolution. It reminds me of all the times I've done a "clean rewrite" only to end up with something that just wasn't any better. Sometimes even worse.
A lot of people won't give up, though: in the face of enormous evidence they'll still assure themselves that because something is "new" and "clean" it's somehow better.
So if x86, with all it's hacks and kludges, is still faster and more efficient than these so called "clean" designs, what the heck is the point of having a clean design?
Cheers.
I guess I was jumbling "correctness" in with "consistency". Sloppy language of me, but in spirit I think it makes sense. An inconsistent system seems incorrect to me. Which is why I think we usually opt for incomplete systems instead, since they're still so darn useful.
Doesn't it (any formal system of mathematics) have to be limited in either it's correctness or completeness? As determined by Kurt Godel?
Many mathematics types seem bothered by that, but I actually think it's just about the most beautiful thing...
I'm using Safari Version 2.0 (412) right now on Tiger (10.4.1) and the test does not render correctly. Is this some unreleased version they're talking about?
I agree with much of what you've said here.
Just keep in mind that many people (myself, for one) do not steal music at all. I just like to be able to copy it around for my own convenience and to have tools that allow me to manage my rightfully purchased data as I see fit.
My gripe is when DRM and the DMCA interfere with these otherwise legal and morally acceptiable actions on my part. If there was a way to stop people from stealing music without getting in my way, I'd be all for it. However, there isn't. So I'm against their lame attempts (which always penalize me without actually preventing piracy).
Cheers.
I can make no comment as to how much of a rip off it was -- but why would the movie studios reject it for that? They constantly put out stuff that is a complete rip off.
Cheers.
And it will also show, as this movie rakes in the dough, that such downloading has no measurable effect on a film's financial success.
Cheers.
Super post.
This site is a great resource, and it looks like the numbers are right to me, based on my Prius II experience.
... but it's like 45MPH on a dynamometer for the highway test, right? Who drives like that? Does it take into account aerodynamics at all?
However, what I'd really like to see is similarly gathered data for traditional cars. Especially for ones in the same size/weight categories. I don't trust the EPA numbers for those either. Well, I trust they measure _something_
I guess it would be tougher because very few traditional cars give accurate mileage readouts...
Let's keep these lawsuits coming. The more this happens the faster this crap will get to the Supreme Court and shot down.
Cheers.
And that is exactly the difference between us. You're an engineer, I'm an architect. ... Ultimately, we need each other. Without me, you'd live in a world where everything's a hack. Without you, I'd live in a world with nothing in it :)
That's quite a nice way of looking at it. I accept your description.
One note: I'm an architect at heart -- when I design stuff for myself I want to get it perfect. I've just never been able to maintain that at work.
Cheers.
In a good design there are no ambiguities.
:)
... ones that couldn't be resolved without limiting functionality.
I don't know what planet you are on my friend. I wish I could visit you there
By the way, you didn't seem to read my second example properly. If you need it both ways, (a situation that often arises when the real world meets the virtual world) you're going to have to hack it one way or the other and the hack will stay.
I don't believe I've ever come across a piece of widely-used code that didn't have at least a few hacks like this
And there are those who would argue that functionality would be best limited in that case. Personally I feel that the code exists to serve a need, not to be pure and pretty. If you feel differently and can convince those around you of such, more power to you.
Cheers.
Have you ever worked in the real world? Ever stayed at a company for more than a couple of years? Then you've got to know what I'm talking about. No matter how perfect you try to design your system you will come across points where you have to do something arbitrary like this. When you do, a comment is invaluable. Heck, I could just has easily have made it:Now what am I supposed to do wiseguy? Maybe sometimes I need it included and sometimes I don't. Good design doesn't make comments any less important.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Heh... I would say "no" just because I never took any programming classes! But I do use "we" all the time like that. I don't know why I feel comfortable speaking for the whole team :)
Cheers.
Definitely not. No matter how clear your code is, it only gives you an idea of what is going on the small scale. You often need comments to describe your big-picture motivation. But the comments have to be good too.
Here's a classic bad comment:That's useless. But a comment can help:No matter how clear you write the code you're not going to get that much understanding without a comment.
It's just a simple example off the top of my head, but that's how I use comments. The code clarity is all that's needed to tell what you are doing, but comments can tell you why you are doing it. You need both for truly maintainable code.
Cheers.
I am appalled by atheists exploiting success of science (which neither presumes nor denies existence of God, so far, at least) to bash religion.
As an athiest, I don't think science puts the nail in religion's coffin. All the scientific explanations for the universe and it's functioning can be accepted as the design of God. And any contradictory passages in the bible can be labled as metaphor.
If anything puts the nail in religion's coffin, it's history.
Religions (at least the popular ones) have failed to help society on the grand scale. They fail to guide. And if they fail to guide then what is their use? Even if the bible really was the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God, it has shown itself to be useless.
Blame it on man's free will or whatever but what's the point? Why should I allow a destructive philosophy to go on without criticism? I don't care what the author's original intent was -- I care only about the fruits of the followers. And by that measure I'd very much like to see most religions questioned and criticized until they adapt or disappear.
Cheers.
The only director who could, in a million years, have done this movie justice is Terry Gilliam. And it would have been even better if he could have made it with Douglas at his side.
There's something about the tone of Brazil that reminds me of Hitchikers. Sam Lowry is a sort of dark world Arthur Dent... and the poking fun at beaurocracy.
Ah well. A tear is wept for unrealized potential. This film will suck.
Cheers.
You're relatively new to this world, right? :)
We can put a pile of high-tech weapons and defense systems in the hands of our troops. It won't make a spit of difference. The issues there are political and social. Decades of killing hasn't made any progress at all. I just gets worse. If we kill people more efficiently that's not very likely to change.
Why do you think there are so many countries that have been terrorized for decadees? Lack of good enough weapons? I would tend to think it runs deeper than that.
This is different from a regular war where you've got a leader of a cohesive nation invading other nations. In that case you can "win". This stuff is based on centuries of internal religious conflict amont the people themselves. It's unlikely we'll make a high enough percentage of the people there happy in the near future.
Ah well. Let's just nuke the whole area and let God sort them out. Because weapons will help. Right?
Cheers.
Memory: get 512MB for normal usage. Anything less and you will be unhappy. This is from my experience, and also what my wife who works at the apple store has seen with customers.
If you're doing some major media stuff (editing huge images, or doing substantial audio/video work) you'll want to get 1GB.
Cheers.
Look for Eccleston to star alongside David Caruso in a film this summer. They play a pair of delusional self-important actors that bumble around Hollywood in search of fame while people ask them "who are you"?
At least Eccleston can reply "Who? Exactly!"
Cheers.