On Sep 20, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: >> For how many years have you been arguing for "space efficient" >> internal representations and no one has been listening? Do you >> know why? [Hint: it's not because implementors don't care about >> space efficiency] > > I would be interested in knowing your argument :)
Unicode code points currently require 21 bits of storage if represented uniformly. That number is unlikely to increase beyond 32 bits in any foreseeable future. Storage (disk, ram, L_n cache, etc.) has been increasing exponentially on all computational devices (personal computers, PDAs, phones, ipods, et cetera). The desktop I purchased 14 years ago had 4MBs of RAM, and my current laptop has 4GBs: that's a 1000 fold increase. Now maybe in the distant past, I would've cringed if I even thought of using 4 bytes per character in a string. Today, I can use 4 bytes *and* at the same time hold hundreds of times more data in memory than I could back then. As memory increases, I would worry about the 4 bytes even less and less. As time passes, I find the arguments for "memory efficient" representations less appealing. Since the time R6RS was being discussed, available memory has more than doubled. By the time R7RS is finalized (if ever), memory would at least quadruple again. This is why I asked John about how many years he's been using the "space efficiency" argument; to me, that argument has been obsolete about 2 years after I've first heard it. Aziz,,, _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
