Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.misc |
| Subject | Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems |
| Date | 2024-04-14 20:48 +0200 |
| Organization | i2pn2 (i2pn.org) |
| Message-ID | <f2587e4a-d281-693f-530f-e3754c140ac1@example.net> (permalink) |
| References | <slrnv1lac8.3s4.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain> <Java-20240413181713@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <661b0bd4@news.ausics.net> |
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote or quoted: >>> programming languages that "scale down". >> >> David forgot to tell use what it means for a programming language >> to "scale down". > > Wasn't that in the second paragraph? > > "Good systems should be able to scale down as well as up. They > should run on slower computers that don't have as much memory or > disk storage as the latest models. Likewise, from the human point > of view, downwardly scalable systems should also be small enough to > learn and use without being an expert programmer." ... > > I read it mainly out of interest in his ideas for the first aspect > with running on slower computers, but it turns out he doesn't > really discuss that at all. They tend to be contradictory goals, so > without proposing a way to unify them it makes that aspect purely > aspirational. > > In fact in terms of memory and disk storage GCC keeps going > backwards that even for C/C++. Compiling large C/C++ programs with > -Os in ever newer GCC versions keeps producing ever bigger binaries > for unchanged code. Of course other compilers are available and I'm > not sure how other popular ones compare. Why do they go backwards? I mean larger binaries must come with some benefit right?
Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Downwardly Scalable Systems Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2024-04-13 15:56 +0000
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2024-04-13 18:33 +0000
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2024-04-13 19:28 +0000
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-04-14 08:48 +1000
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2024-04-13 23:54 +0000
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-14 20:48 +0200
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-04-15 08:12 +1000
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-15 12:17 +0200
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-04-15 14:30 +0000
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-15 18:40 +0100
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-15 21:40 +0200
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2024-04-16 01:47 +0000
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-16 08:31 +0100
Re: Downwardly Scalable Systems D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-16 10:52 +0200
csiph-web