🚀 go-pugleaf

On 10 Mar 1999 00:30:38 +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad <jani@ifi.uio.no>
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Mar 1999 04:06:15 GMT, ghowland@lupineNO.SPAMgames.com
>(Geoff Howland) said:
>
>> Prediction: In 15-20 years almost all specific computer problems we
>> have now will seem ridiculously pathetic.
>
>Forgive me, but I think that sounds pretty ridiculous, since you don't
>say what you mean with "computer problems".
>
>Will backwards compatibility cease to be an issue?
>
>Do you consider race conditions a "computer problem"?

Before you start gnashing your teeth you should read the sentence
completely. 

"Specific computer problem".  Meaning "we cant do a full matrix divide
in one cycle" or "we cant do a 1 vertex rotation in one cycle"

Thats a specific problem.

Storage space, backwards compatibility, user interface clunkiness.

Those are general problems.

>How about synchronization of threads in a distributed, multi-processor
>environment for real-time applications (multimedia and the such, which
>we can assume will be more popular in the future)?

Quite possibly there could be a good solution by then and it could be
a non worry.  A hardware synchronization solution with a general API
could do it.

>And then there's the speed of light, which currently is an obstacle
>for world wide communications (don't you just hate those 240ms delays
>on your satellite links)?

Its amazing what miscomprenhension can lead one to.

>These were just the specific computer problems I picked off the top
>of my head.  Maybe someone else involved with architecture design can
>think of other problems which have about a snowball's chance in hell
>of seeming pathetic in that time.

Some of them are general problems.  The speed of light barried seems
like a pretty general problem to me.  However, these individual
next-step problems wont be around in 15-20 years.

How many "barriers" like those has the hard drive industry gone
through?  The IC industry?  They are almost to the point of making
chips that electricity could not be expected to stay on track because
of the uncertainty priniciple.

This isnt a specific problem either, comptuer wise.  Its a physics and
life problem.  Who knows, they could have optical chips instead of
IC's in the future if someone can think of a way to make an optical
transitor without moving parts.  Or they could move into the tiny
machine concept of The Diamond Age.  (Not in 15-20 years, but at some
point in the future to eliminate the problems with electricity's
uncertainty in movement)

Next time read the post before you ignite your flamethrower.

-Geoff Howland
Lupine Games               http://www.lupinegames.com/