Am Montag, 10. Dezember 2012, 20:06:58 schrieb Grant Edwards: > On 2012-12-10, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:06:36 +0000 (UTC) > > > > Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 2012-12-10, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerar...@googlemail.com> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > Am Samstag, 8. Dezember 2012, 19:25:55 schrieb Grant: > >> >> It seems like ARM processors will destroy x86 before too long. > >> >> Does anyone think this won't happen? > >> > > >> > no > >> > > >> > two reasons: > >> > > >> > not enough power > >> > does not run x86 software > >> > > >> > the second one is a real deal breaker. > >> > >> Only until somebody invents some sort of scheme where you can write a > >> program using a source language that isn't tied directly to the > >> processor architecture. Then you'd be able to build programs (or even > >> OS kernels) so that they'd run on a variety of CPU architectures! > > > > We can do that *already* > > > > java > > perl > > python > > dotnet > > and any number of other languages compiled to bytecode. There's too > > many to list. > > I know. :) > > And even if you stick with old-school compiled languages to C, > supporting multiple architectures isn't any more difficult than > supporting the plethora of x86-based motherboards and chipsets. > > * Apple transitioned from 68K to PPC to x86 without much problem, > and they don't seem to have any problem getting software to run on > ARM devices.
apple had what? 1% market share back then? Legacy apps running all around, doing heavy lifting.... no way to 'port' them. Just remember all those COBOL programmers who got reactivated back in 1999. Or Itanium. One thing why it failed so hard: it didn't run x86 software well enough. If you have to go all new - why not POWER or UltraSparc instead? -- #163933
