>
>> Having seen the ramifications of all these changes in the
>>personal computer landscape, I've been wondering what the next
>>step will be in forced obsolescence. It scares me, but it may
>>be the end of all support for 32-bit systems with a determined
>>focus on 64-bit systems and the headlong charge into 128-bit
>>systems.
>>
>> We need to be at least one step ahead of this potential
>>threat, so I'm proposing that a resistance group be formed: The
>>32-Bit Under Ground (32-BUG).
>
>
>A group very similar to 32-BUG already exists... I don't know what
>they're called, but they're in the office between the Flat-Earth
>Research Society and the Order of Male Chauvinist Pigs. "The secret
>is to bang the rocks together, guys" :)
>
I took out the trade name "Progressive Ludites" many years ago, sort of a
focal point for reviewing older technology as a means for addressing modern
problems. Solar-powered refrigeration (air conditioning) is a significant
point. We've been diving headlong into using photovoltaics, batteries, and
power inverters is a solution, but a much older form, more than a century old,
is used widely in southeast Asia, the South Pacific, and elsewhere, known as
"steam-jet refrigeration". It has no moving parts except for a small fluid
pump, and the only electric power needed is for that pump plus the usual
circulation fan. It is more reliable and far less expensive.
>
>The sad thing is that the skript-kiddies in the development department
>expend no effort on efficient coding.
>
Aye, there's the rub. I've been beating the cyberpulpit for years about
efficient coding. Back in the days when six significant digits was the norm
and 14-digit double precision was exotic, we were taught methods of numerical
analysis how to get good results and better speed by way of writing code that
minimised accumulated errors and also used less processing time. I doubt that
any of these cyber-toddlers have aver heard of such a thing.
>
> To make it worse, most programmers
>are taught in Java-like languages, which can never be tight... and
>requires an underlying 'virtual machine' (old farts like me would say:
>interpreter) to execute it. This is also subject to bloat and full of
>security holes (I miss you, Chuck :,( ).
>
Which is ridiculous! Why have a virtual machine when you have a real one?
Chris Trask
N7ZWY / WDX3HLB
Senior Member IEEE
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|