OpenEuphoria

Re: Important question to all Euphoria users

• Posted by Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at gmail.com> Nov 15, 2005
• 573 views

Vincent wrote:
> 
> It's not that I or anyone else wants to worry about concurrency, it's 
> the fact these CPU developers/manufacturers are forcing it upon us with their
> extreme efforts at improving CPU performance. For the past 30 years, CPU
> families
> have been improved by decreasing circuitry size, increasing transitor count,
> and increasing clock frequency. However Moore's Law is finally starting to
> impose
> it's limits on that philosophy, so processor manufacturers are having to come
> up with new ways to extend the law a bit longer.

I think you misunderstood my question.  If you're doing lots of number 
crunching, for instance, then you can perhaps benefit from a multi-core
architecture (e.g., SETI at home, etc).  Possibly some sort of graphics 
intensive application that requires lots of calculations.  But not most
of the stuff that most people write.  Multiple cores probably aren't going 
to give you much if you're doing lots of disk I/O, for instance.  Or if
your app sits around waiting for user input.

I understand that the raw speed of processors has stalled, and that the
conventional wisdom is that we'll get multi-cored processors.  And that's 
probably a big bonus when you consider a system as a whole, where you're
doing multiple things simultaneously, but conventional wisdom also says
that most apps won't benefit from this in the same way that they have
from faster chips.

So.  I'm genuinely curious what you (and anyone else with an interesting 
answer) would do with this multi-cored machine that would be so much 
better that what we have now.

Matt Lewis