🚀 go-pugleaf

Don_Lewine@dg.com (Donald Lewine) writes:
>That makes the assumption that everyone will use a compact address space.

Not really.  I carefully posed my frivolous pricing around physical addresses
rather than virtual.

Not that I understand why there's a desire to add all sorts of other stuff
to virtual addresses.  People talk off-handedly about virtual addresses that
can address any byte of any computer on the Internet.  Do programmers really
want things like this?  From a database perspective, I sure don't.  If an
access has to go off and do something expensive (waltz over the network,
read from secondary storage, etc) I want to know about it do what I can
to coalesce the references in an efficient order.  As long as I can address
what's in real memory, I'm thrilled.

If people are in favor of large, persistent virtual addresses, I guess the
IBM System/38 (now AS/400) architects got the last laugh.
-- 
Kurt Shoens