On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 08:58:40PM -0800, Tom wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 11:43:23PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > [great stuff which is absolutely correct] > > However, I "Tom Ballard" have figured it all out. > The problem with all of computer science is the left hand doesn't know > what the right hand is doing. All of these problems are finite and can > be handled in an "a priori" way. The problem is computer science grew > up not knowing that so we pretend we don't immediately know everything > and compute in an "a posteori way". > > What I'm talking about is tearing down the concept of a general purpose > computer. The only reason I can't run all my programs in a single > memory space and know just exactly what the heck is going to happen is > it makes poor economic sense to work that way. > > Consider a SQL Server for example. For any given schema which will > a maximum of contain {N1...Nm} records, I can compute "a priori" the > exact disk location of any record. If memory wasn't so fucking slow > and there were plenty of it, we could assemble any image of this very > quickly. All I need is a simple "I/O monster" that does this one fixed > task in an "a priori way". > > So the problem is general purpose computers. We need to be able to > produce fixed-function devices in a one-off fashion. > > [This rant is probably full of shit] :-) > Yes. ;-)
-- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]