Outstanding Technical Achievement: C# Team

The Discussion

• 

  Damn! Nice video, Charles... Really, really nice!

• 

  Still watching it, but yeah its really nice
  
  (btw woho Anders is Danish )
  
  Happy Birthday c9:D
  

• 

  Excellent video Charles, I always enjoy talking about language development
  
  Thx.

• 

  
  Now if we get an update from the VB Team, this will be even more interesting.
  
  Thanks for this, Charles. You Rock!
  

• 

  I'm really happy you enjoyed this. I know I did! I have a completely new perspective of LINQ and related language "atoms" and "molecules". It's always a humbling and honorable experience to be able to have conversations with some of the best and brightest minds in the industry. I'm so thankful for Channel 9 and the incredible community of Niners.

  Happy birthday to you all.

  C

• 

  Wonderful video, it definately goes into my local long term storage drive I'm deeply envious of you Charles for being able to fire questions at these folks. One imagines that if you where to have a 'heat map' displaying computer language and tool innovations in geographic terms then Redmond right now would be a burning bright blue-white spot on said map.
  
  Innovation in language and associated tools is what keeps me so loyal to Windows. No other platform touches it. Much as I love the shell in Vista I find that DevEnv and increasingly PowerShell are really my 'desktop' these days.
  
  Happy birthday to the team and kudos and thanks to all involved.

• 

  This video highlights exactly what channel9 is about: the conversation
  
  Great video and great conversation, thanks

• 

  is always great to hear Anders and his fellows, thanks Charles really great interview!
  
  Keep on posting,
  C, i mean I

• 

  Congrats c# team!  Thanks for sharing.

• 

  I would like to point out that Anders Hejlsberg made a little mistake when he was talking about the multi-core stuff. He said “we are coming to a point where there is a fundamental change in Moore’s Law, it’s not going to go away, but it’s going to change in that it’s not going to give us faster CPUs anymore, it’s going to give us more CPUs”. While it is a fact that we are coming to the point that CPU’s are not getting faster, Moore’s Law didn’t refer to the speed of the CPU’s it referred to the numbers of transistors on an integrated circuit. While this in the past has translated into faster CPU’s, now Moore’s Law continues to apply but instead of a faster single CPU with get more transistors in a multi-core CPU that runs at a speed that hasn’t increased as before.

  But beside that little mistake the video is great.

• 

  Pablo Z wrote:

  

  I would like to point out that Anders Hejlsberg made a little mistake when he was talking about the multi-core stuff. He said “we are coming to a point where there is a fundamental change in Moore’s Law, it’s not going to go away, but it’s going to change in that it’s not going to give us faster CPUs anymore, it’s going to give us more CPUs”. While it is a fact that we are coming to the point that CPU’s are not getting faster, Moore’s Law didn’t refer to the speed of the CPU’s it referred to the numbers of transistors on an integrated circuit. While this in the past has translated into faster CPU’s, now Moore’s Law continues to apply but instead of a faster single CPU with get more transistors in a multi-core CPU that runs at a speed that hasn’t increased as before.

  But beside that little mistake the video is great.

  I'm sorry but I don't see the mistake...
  
  There is nothing incorrect with his statement: The output of Moore's Law used to be faster CPUs, now it's more CPU cores.
  
  His not talking about what makes Moore's Law his talking about what Moore's Law "gave us".
  
  It would indeed be nice to correct a man such as Anders, but I don't think you have.

• 

  I guess I can’t expect people to recognize the difference between saying “we are coming to a point where there is a fundamental change in Moore’s Law” and saying something like “we are coming to a point where there is a fundamental change in the outcome produced by Moore’s Law”.
  
  Also, I don’t feel any better or worse for correcting a small little mistake in the way that Anders expressed the future and Moore’s Law, because doing that doesn’t make me any better or worse.

• 

  Cyonix wrote:

  

  Pablo Z wrote:  I would like to point out that Anders Hejlsberg made a little mistake when he was talking about the multi-core stuff. He said “we are coming to a point where there is a fundamental change in Moore’s Law, it’s not going to go away, but it’s going to change in that it’s not going to give us faster CPUs anymore, it’s going to give us more CPUs”. While it is a fact that we are coming to the point that CPU’s are not getting faster, Moore’s Law didn’t refer to the speed of the CPU’s it referred to the numbers of transistors on an integrated circuit. While this in the past has translated into faster CPU’s, now Moore’s Law continues to apply but instead of a faster single CPU with get more transistors in a multi-core CPU that runs at a speed that hasn’t increased as before. But beside that little mistake the video is great.

  I'm sorry but I don't see the mistake...
  
  There is nothing incorrect with his statement: The output of Moore's Law used to be faster CPUs, now it's more CPU cores.
  
  His not talking about what makes Moore's Law his talking about what Moore's Law "gave us".
  
  It would indeed be nice to correct a man such as Anders, but I don't think you have.

  
  This is actually kinda interresting. We only just moved to 65nm chips(Where AMD just only just recently did this step), intel have been doing for some time.
  The smaller circuits, the more you can put in a chip. This allows greater speed.
  While i do think we will be moving to quad core soon, i still see that there will be GREAT room for faster cpu's.
  Last year IBM managed to print 29,9NM chips(Which is substansial smaller then the current chips we got, allows for great speed improvements), using deep-ultraviolet. While this is now possible, its also supposed to be very expensive.
  The problem isn't actually the clock speed of the CPU, its actually the heat. We dont have any sufficent way to cool down the cpu, when we get up to these high speds. The faster it runs, the more electricity it takes. And we know that electricity = heat.
  So what we see now is that we use many CPU's in 1 chip.
  
  Please take a read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

• 

  Congratulations for a language well done.
  
  Who would not want to be called a COOL programmer?
  
  Microsoft Marketing blew this one big time.
  
  Purity is for academics. LINQ is for expressive developers.
  
  Great video.
  
  
  
  PS. Big believer in taking and circulating notes of meetings.
  
  

• 

  Just thought I'd share something funny I found today. http://www.wiltamuth.com/blog/shipparty/ [6]