Hi Thomas,
A short response to your questions, in order are:
Yes. Thinking. No. IBM.
Now that we all clear, I'll elaborate just a wee bit because the
references I'm going to refer you to is quite a forest of information
-- and there are no machetes (shortcuts).
Difficulty:
The essential problem programmers face (together with nearly everyone
else) has been described within Philosophy and Psychology as a
Paradigm problem. Essentially this means a structured set of ideas
which are written into code for machines to implement. The
instructions or code presented to the machines may be inventive but
they are nonetheless structured and follow a series of collectively
agreed upon assumptions. It is debatable whether these assumptions
are easily changed prior to implementing the instructions in software
or building the hardware. The skills and services involved do
influence one another in powerful and surprising ways, but when an
idea is implemented it always requires study and review regarding
it's effectiveness and value. Simply stated sometimes there exists a
lag where apparently endless discussions addressing apparent minutiae
occurs and then just as suddenly there are spurts or bursts of
insightful and astounding comprehension.
A brief consideration of what went into IBM's Cell: 30 years of
research of world class scientists, which includes supercooled metals
which contributes to removing friction (expressed as heat) such that
electrons move through circuitry effortlessly; the implementation of
advanced mathematics brought via the insight gained from exploring
Benoit Mendolbrot's (an IBM Research Fellow) fractals. This and more
is what IBM's hardware engineers brought forth as the Cell.
The software engineers and programmers, external to IBM are still
learning what this thing can do.
What is already clear however is that although all the already
commonly available code prepared for Intel and other commonly
available (or even earlier generation PowerPC) processors can be
executed upon recompilation within the Cell and executed -- none of
it approaches using a fraction of the capacity of any one of the
available PPC cores or SPUs, nor does anything currently coded exist
to fully implement the capacity available in the Cell.
This is the "sticking point" because now the problem is not the Cell;
it is rather what to do with it. This is something akin to a 17 year
old having a Lamborghini for $20. The difference is that while he/
she can work out his/her impulses via the PS3 Game OS s/he can also
be on the same "floor" together with the best programmers on the
planet in learning how to implement the Cell well. Now that's a
level "playing field", and just like that 17 year old who opened up
the iPhone -- the opportunity for a young mind free of learned
structured assumptions has the opportunity to do fresh programming
that has never even been conceived of. This is both a real problem
and opportunity. This time titles or laurels are not as important as
solid study skills, disciplined determination and insight dedicated
to constructive learning.
Although I'm discussing just the field of computing, the overall
process and problem of a paradigm was elaborated and explored in more
detail by Thomas Kuhn in his work "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions" (ISBN-13: 978-0226458083).
Tracking processors:
The question you raise is really a very interesting one because it
reflects the traditional view or approach of current professionals in
nearly every field. It is because of this collective mindset that
discovering anything really new or proceeding in a new direction in
software (or any other endeavor -- take your pick: Politics,
Religion, Whatever) is very much a challenge. Seriously upon deep
analysis nearly any approach is a modified rehash of whatever has
been attempted before. This is exactly where, and very few human
societies are ready for this, what is "tried and true" -- fails.
Human Societies are terrible at adapting to new situations quickly or
well, many choose denial as the preferred method in confronting
oncoming realities.
However, the opportunity remains for those who will resist succumbing
to denial or the collective mindset surrounding their environment to
apply constructive effort towards developing a thorough foundation so
that constructive development and contributions can be explored,
tested and implemented. Engaging upon such a path is difficult for
anyone because it is much easier to cooperate and get paid, by the
commonly accepted and established ways of participating with the
"tried and true" way of doing things. Remember that Da Vinci engaged
in all the madness of his time never allowing any hint or indication
of the personal research or effort he was engaged upon deeply. What
is very interesting in our time is that open source, as a concept,
may counter the need or the impulse to respond as Da Vinci did to a
dangerous and still mostly superstitious world.
The opportunity is very real, but seeing it and implementing it are
challenges which not many will or can accept. To help out just a
bit, the cores or SPUs are aware of each other and can be instructed
to work in tandem or independently; the one SPU which Sony reserves
and restricts YDL (or any Linux) from accessing doesn't affect the
very real problem that programmers don't know enough how to take
advantage of the available SPUs anyway.
As I said, the problem is Thinking. There is a nice little book
written by Martin Heidegger entitled "What is Called
Thinking?" (ISBN-13: 978-0060905286) which could be useful in
preparing to address the task of approaching a new direction
intelligently. A 17 year old wouldn't need that, we however do as we
need to rediscover what beginning anew and moving forward well
actually means. The youngster by his/her very nature is ready to
explore and investigate everything and so s/he does. Our advantage
however is what the youngster has in energy; we have, or should have,
in ...
Of course, how that sentence is completed by a person addresses
another layer of the challenge.
More technically relevant references are available within these lists
from within the archives:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ydl-gen] So, PS3
Date: November 20, 2006 10:14:37 AM EST
To: [email protected]
also
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ydl-gen] So, PS3
Date: November 20, 2006 12:27:49 PM EST
To: [email protected]
and
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ydl-gen] Programming the PS3 Introduction
Date: January 4, 2007 8:57:16 AM EST
To: [email protected]
Explanation:
Type the subject title as listed here into Google. A list of all
participants discussing that subject will appear. The dates listed
above will help you determine the specific comment together with the
links those persons provided to references which could help you further.
Good Luck....
On Oct 1, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Thomas A. McGonagle wrote:
Hello All,
Through the mainstream press, I have often heard just how hard it
is for game developers to develop their games for the PS3's Cell
Processor.
Have any Cell Processor programmers found it terribly hard? What
causes the difficulty? Do you need to keep track of which processor ?
Can anyone recommend a resource to learn more about the Cell
processor? I am particularly interested in why only 6 PPUs are
available to Yellow Dog, and not all 8.
Thank you very much for the help, and have a nice day!
-Tom
_______________________________________________
yellowdog-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general
HINT: to Google archives, try '<keywords>
site:terrasoftsolutions.com'
================================
Life only demands from you the strength that you possess. Only one
feat is possible; not to run away.
-- Dag Hammarskjold (July 29, 1905 - September 18, 1961)
_______________________________________________
yellowdog-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general
HINT: to Google archives, try '<keywords> site:terrasoftsolutions.com'
