Re: gnat and heap size

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

Are we getting dangerously close to discussing how many angels can dance on
the head of a pin? :-)

BTW: I think a sugar cube is a little closer to a half inch - maybe 3/4
inch - also depending on the particular brand. (Some are square while others
are more "Domino" shaped... Pun intended.)

I'll bet that we will continue to see some really major advances in storage
technology in the years to come. A 64-bit address is probably a little large
for anything that is likely to hit the market in the next couple of years,
so why design in that limitation? But is it reasonably forseeable that we
might want 128 bit addresses for anything? At some point, that starts
becoming the construction of the proverbial brick outhouse....

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Dale Pennington" <Dale.K.Pennington@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:GKBxLF.ICJ@news.boeing.com...
> You might note, that is one sugar cube was one terrabyte (i.e. 10**12
> bytes), then it would take a MegaSugarCube with approximately 262 sugar
> cubes to a side to hold 2**64 bytes of data. I am not sure of the
dimensions
> of a sugar cube, but if one were to assume a 0.25" sugar cube, that would
be
> be about 5 1/2" per side cube. Note too bad for a fixed site, but a but
> large for a laptop.
>