Discussions

21 hours ago, eddwo wrote

What do you need a 128 GHz chip for?  Are you modelling turbulent flows in fluid dynamics, or do you just want prettier graphics in your games?  

I'm sure we all want to approach holodeck style realism one day, but for most tasks the current systems are probably more than powerful enough.

People adapt a lot more slowly than computers. We still get people asking us for 'minimum system requirements', or what PC should they buy to run our software, when in truth for all but the most demanding applications any computer under 5 years old will do fine.  

I'm still using a Core 2 Duo 6300 from 2006 as my development machine, just with rather a bit more RAM now than what it started with.

 

What we really need is a way to actually make full use the capabilities of the systems we have without all the 'bloating' that has gone on. We have mostly just adapted to faster computers by creating more inefficient software, which leaves us roughly in the same position we were a decade ago in terms of responsiveness.

No it isn't, and it might never be, not in our life times anyway. It depends how much of the world you want to simulate.

11 hours ago, PopeDai wrote

*snip*

I find IO to be the biggest bottleneck right now. There's no point being able to crunch through 10GB of data on your CPU in under 500ms if it still takes 30 seconds to read it from disk.

I also want to know why 3D games from 12 years ago have more responsive hardware accelerated UIs than a WinForms WebBrowser control embedded within a WinForms UserControl embedded within a WPF control, contained within a WinForms form (this is some of the internal software we use). The window takes 3 seconds to handle a resize event.

software rendering and abstractions on top of abstractions on top of abstractions?

@felix9:no

bad software is my guess, the fact that it has to run 24/7 will probably surface most of the bugs; I never ever had any issues with switching equipment, probably because the software on these devices tends to be much simpler than what you'd find in a wireless router

I still hate Wi-Fi very very much, too much interference in the area I live in, and the connection is too slow; I use a wired connection

2 days ago, blowdart wrote

*snip*

And give you a laptop with SLAT enabled

And enough income to afford 1000 WP licenses every month

Apr 12, 2013 at 5:10 AM, androidi wrote

Example:

var list = new List<KeyValuePair<string, decimal>>();
myClass.GenericMethod<typeof(list)>(list);

I'm pretty sure C++11 had something like this, why doesn't C# have it?

it's called decltype, and it's awesome, come back to the right side

C# doesn't have templates, so it wouldn't be that usefult there

11 minutes ago, MasterPie wrote

@Ion Todirel: It's impossible to know who copied who. You could have arranged your monitors that way after I posted that picture on FB several weeks ago.

if you send a postcard, they'll send you w3bb0 back

@MasterPie:copycat

1 day ago, dakedk2 wrote

maybe they're at a point where the DirectX API is mature enough to feed the developers for the upccoming several years, just like C language

There's actually a new C standard called C11, check it out. C is far from being done, for the most versatile language on the planet

@raymond: I thought this was an interesting discussion about C++14, now I'm disappointed :/