🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <WAYNE.90Feb11165528@dsndata.uucp> wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes:
> very few programs need more than 4
>gigabytes in either code or data.  sure you can do things like mapping
>your 20 gig of disc into memory, but do you _really_ need to?

Perhaps you mean to say, "very few programs *are able* to take
advantage of 4 gigabytes in either code or data, and this is due to
only arithmetic increases in the software industry's ability to
increase the scope and complexity of its code, while simultaneously
preserving or improving reliability and usability."

I have every reason to believe that I could benefit from a
well-written program that required >4 GB address space. However, given
the shortage of people with the type of scalable problems of low
Kolmogorov complexity that can readily expand to fill such an
architecture, I expect to see the "software gap" widening
continuously, until it becomes the main bottleneck to further progress
in the computer industry. Might we get to the point where
fantastically powerful hardware is widely available at practically no
cost, but the entire human race grinds to a standstill because all
available intellectual capacity must grapple with trying to program
it?

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu