"I think we can all agree, 256 cores is enough for anybody."
Some time from now, this comment might be as archaic as the '640K of RAM' blooper. It all depends on how powerful the cores are and how many threads you want to run.
I think a lot of the posts come down to this: if all you ever want to be is an application programmer in the language de jour, then most theoretical underpinnings of computer science are probably useless. The routine task of programming doesn't require a great deal of intelligence or theory, and while not for everybody, most people can master it well enough to write 90% of the code out there (this is a random number, of course).
On the other hand, if you want to have a career in CS doing something more than just routine programming, then a solid theoretical base is crucial. I am not aware of a single widely-used algorithm (from Dijkstra's to quick sort to dynamic programming) written by a CIS/vo-tech graduate. If you have even a remote interest in working in the field of compilers, OS development, AI, or CAD (just to name a few), you will need the theoretical background that a solid CS program gives you.
Of course, if you're contemplating graduate school in CS or related subject, then you certainly cannot be overly prepared.
As years go by, it never ceases to amaze me how subject matters that I had encountered in various courses in my undergrad days pop up in various contexts. Subjects that was absolutely certain were of no interest or use to me. That is the purpose of a strong foundation: to prepare you for the diversity of experiences out there.... and on a different note: read up on Slashdot now while you still have the time, because with a schedule like that, you are not going to have much of a life this semester.:)
Thanks for the insight! The analysis seems correct. I always felt that despite interesting technology, these guys didn't seem to have a core market to cater to. Under-powered to run Windows, and too "heavy" for the embedded apps.
What they did with their first processor, though, was pretty ballsy. When the big guys were still climbing the superscalar curve (with diminishing returns, of course), these guys identified the problem (energy) and went after it in a very big way, ripping out huge chunks of HW and putting them into SW. Thet just went a bit too far..
Good to know we can count on you guys (ie, Canadiens) to sort things out;)
Slashdot Mirror
It's visual, promotes imagination, and has a fantastic online community where your kid can share his project, get feedback, ask for advice, etc. http://scratch.mit.edu/ great article from ACM to whet your appetite: http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2009/11/48421-scratch-programming-for-all/fulltext good luck!
"I think we can all agree, 256 cores is enough for anybody." Some time from now, this comment might be as archaic as the '640K of RAM' blooper. It all depends on how powerful the cores are and how many threads you want to run.
I think a lot of the posts come down to this: if all you ever want to be is an application programmer in the language de jour, then most theoretical underpinnings of computer science are probably useless. The routine task of programming doesn't require a great deal of intelligence or theory, and while not for everybody, most people can master it well enough to write 90% of the code out there (this is a random number, of course).
... and on a different note: read up on Slashdot now while you still have the time, because with a schedule like that, you are not going to have much of a life this semester. :)
On the other hand, if you want to have a career in CS doing something more than just routine programming, then a solid theoretical base is crucial. I am not aware of a single widely-used algorithm (from Dijkstra's to quick sort to dynamic programming) written by a CIS/vo-tech graduate. If you have even a remote interest in working in the field of compilers, OS development, AI, or CAD (just to name a few), you will need the theoretical background that a solid CS program gives you.
Of course, if you're contemplating graduate school in CS or related subject, then you certainly cannot be overly prepared.
As years go by, it never ceases to amaze me how subject matters that I had encountered in various courses in my undergrad days pop up in various contexts. Subjects that was absolutely certain were of no interest or use to me. That is the purpose of a strong foundation: to prepare you for the diversity of experiences out there.
Thanks for the insight! The analysis seems correct. I always felt that despite interesting technology, these guys didn't seem to have a core market to cater to. Under-powered to run Windows, and too "heavy" for the embedded apps.
;)
What they did with their first processor, though, was pretty ballsy. When the big guys were still climbing the superscalar curve (with diminishing returns, of course), these guys identified the problem (energy) and went after it in a very big way, ripping out huge chunks of HW and putting them into SW. Thet just went a bit too far..
Good to know we can count on you guys (ie, Canadiens) to sort things out
Cheers!