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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,37c1639cf6a3bbba X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: Re: A scary story from the real world. Reply-To: anon@anon.org (anon) References: <0Q0Zi.409$CT3.318@newsfet01.ams> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:09:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.30.54 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1194646161 12.65.30.54 (Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:09:21 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:09:21 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18236 Date: 2007-11-09T22:09:21+00:00 List-Id: Microsoft may have a lot of weigh but they are more wrong in what they say then they are right! And they are great at passing the blame. What they forget to say is that from the 1980s they have enforce bad programming techniques. An example is the use of Basic and allowing one line programs even though that one line was multi-statement taking 16k to 64k in length. Another is their views on multicore and parallel processing. I was talking about multicore and parallel processing back in September I came across an article about Microsoft and multicore processors. The article was something like Microsoft saying back in the 1980s that we would never need more than 640K for a ram size. Title: Microsoft sees shift to parallel in 10yrs Posted: 03 Sep 2007 Multicore processors are driving a historic shift to a new parallel architecture for mainstream computers. But a parallel programming model to serve those machines will not emerge for five to 10 years, according to experts from Microsoft Corp. ... by Rick Merritt EE Times In talking to another person they said: > This is kinda funny, mostly because some serious multi-core machines > are available today. And with AMD entering the race with a quad > Opteron, and 8-core systems from Intel on the immediate horizon, I > expect to see prices for 4/8-way systems fall to a reasonable range > within a year or two. Now, granted, my definition of "reasonable" may > be slightly higher than some people's, but still.. they are coming, > and they'll be here before the decade mark for sure. And it is funny because there are basically four groups that are powering parallel processing. Group 0, or the original parallel group which is the scientific community. With government and tax payers paying the bill they have the money for multicore and parallel processing power, now. Then there is Group 1 which is business. Mostly at the movement is controlled by the internet and internet servers, they not only need the bandwidth but they need the processing power was well. Even though there is a small shift away from porn, the internet is still being paid by the biggest online money maker services aka porn. They have the money for multicore processing power and the need to use it, now. Count Movies makers as Group 2. Movie makers want to use special effects that are sometime dangerous or impossible to do. So, the count on special effects software to do the movie magic. The more power they have the more they can do in record time. And with the movie going public able and welling to pay for that special effects movie, the movie makers have the cash for that power. And their need is now. And Group 3, is the newest group but has deep pockets aka the Gamer, they want more power and are willing to achieve the power at any cost. And the Gamer is not going to wait for Microsoft's idea of 10 years. They want it, Yesterday. And with system like the "Powerstation 3" a 8/7 (1 processor disabled) they are not waiting. The "Powerstation 3" uses an IBM RISC multicore processor that IBM has stated that they are coming out with a line of business and server models using that same multicore processor. Besides multicore and parallel processing groups. There is the masses of the world. They are not waiting for Microsoft, they want more power now, like the functions in an IPHONE or the new IPOD. And these embedded system are less likely to crash. So, those programmers who wrote the code have it going on. And some of those system may have been written in Ada. So, the power brokers groups and the technology are not waiting for Microsoft to play once again catch up on technology. They are slowly moving away from listening to a Dinosaur called Microsoft. May Be Microsoft should do a background check of the programmers they are blaming. They probability would find these programmer have been mind wipe to believe only in Microsoft dogma. With no true vision of the current status or the future of the computer world. But the scary part is that Microsoft may have to play hard ball aka the software patent or licenses just to stay in the game. Oops, sorry, they are already playing the licensing game, once again. Plus, to Microsoft "Ada" is permanently dead! And C/C++, JAVA are on their death bed as well. Which leaves "Visual Basic" and the .net for the future of programming. In <0Q0Zi.409$CT3.318@newsfet01.ams>, Per Sandberg writes: >I was on a conference this week and that opened my eyes on the complete >ignorance of good compilers and languages in some the Reliable SW >communities. > http://www.issre2007.hv.se/extra/pod/ >There was lots of talks about on how to detect values out of bounds and >other problems that reasonable languages with type-system would find >probably at compile time. > >One Microsoft person said "we had lots of crashes in the system and the >cause of that was that the driver vendors did not look on the return >code from functions" >Then the blamed the poor programmer for not reading the secret "users >manual". >/Per > > > >