From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,915d37e7b8e0ec69
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: and visual library once again
Date: 23 Oct 2005 14:41:43 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1130103703.328431.309430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
References: <1129861178.782874.87870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <d6idnV4FsK7H9cXeRVn-qA@comcast.com>
   <1129888684.681335.230450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <djavhe$1ghi$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>
   <1130049078.633311.55000@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <ZsK6f.444$Rl1.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.238.135.165
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1130103708 9287 127.0.0.1 (23 Oct 2005 21:41:48
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:41:48 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 Firefox/1.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.238.135.165;
   posting-account=GBMmzA0AAABrZ0dHOASa3b2Cdf-RliH9
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5900
Date: 2005-10-23T14:41:43-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> Steve Whalen wrote:
>
> > Even if we only assume a linear increase in the power of computing
> > available (doubling every 18 months or so) in a few decades, computers
>
> Doubling every 18 months is not a linear increase.

Quite right. I was trying to keep a post that was already too long from
getting longer. Obviously I meant that we are seeing a rate of growth
in computing performance that when plotted on an exponential graph, is
not a straight line, but an accelerating curve. My point is that even
ignoring the growth in the rate of growth, we will have extraordinarily
powerful computers available for very little money 50 to 100 years from
now.

Since you chose to pick on my "linear increase", I take it you disagree
with my basic premise that we will have stunningly powerful and
inexpensive computers available 50 to 100 years from now?

Steve