"machines are still getting faster" [LWN.net]

"machines are still getting faster"

Posted Jan 15, 2009 18:11 UTC (Thu) by dennisdjensen (subscriber, #25165)
In reply to: "machines are still getting faster" by droundy
Parent article: Python slithers into Wesnoth

Nitpicking: Moore's law ended in 2003 when the curve broke.

Software gets slower much faster than hardware gets faster. In a few years assembler will get a
renaissance; it'll be fun again.

Kudos to White for handling this with such patience, kindness and respect.

I recently used C++ on a large project. Even though I know how to code decently in it, it
certainly wasn't a joy, despite all the advantages it gave over C, but I am certain the Wesnoth
developers are using common sense in their decision about this, and as somebody else pointed
out, having fun making the game is no doubt a big part of the decision as well. Let's see in a few
years how things turn out.

Good analysis by the way! I've subscribed to Linux Weekly News for years now, and it's still top
notch compared to others. Thanks!

(Log in to post comments)

"machines are still getting faster"

Posted Jan 15, 2009 22:05 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Nitpicking: Moore's law ended in 2003 when the curve broke.

I think you may be confused about Moore's law: it's not about clock-speed, rather it's about transistor counts. I'm reasonably sure Moore's law still applies. It's being expressed in increasing number of functional units/chip rather than clock cycles..

"machines are still getting faster"

Posted Jan 17, 2009 18:39 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

So true. Another way of looking at it (instead of doubling the number of transistors every 18 months) is how big each transistor is; the size should divide by 2 every 3 years. How has it worked out in practice? Most companies have now built 45 nm fabs, from 65 nm; the 90 nm process of 6 years ago is quite outdated. Notice that it took 6 years instead of the predicted three; it seems that there was a noticeable bump at 65 nm, and the jump from 90 nm took 3 years instead of 1.5.

There is still plenty of room at the bottom. According to wikipedia, we are still 6 to 13 years away from the 11 nm process; and that could lead to even smaller nanoelectronics processes, where transistors are packed even more tightly. I predict that the wrist computers of 2030 will be cleverer than your average HAL of 2001, and that hearing aids will run a flavor of Debian in their 128 cores.