Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!bzs From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Processing Message-ID: <6872@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 22-Apr-87 21:25:54 EST Article-I.D.: bu-cs.6872 Posted: Wed Apr 22 21:25:54 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Apr-87 05:40:45 EST References: <505@sw1e.UUCP> <110@hippo.UUCP> <6123@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <6654@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <113@umich.UUCP> Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci. Lines: 67 In-reply-to: jtr485@umich.UUCP's message of 19 Apr 87 04:55:06 GMT Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix) From: jtr485@umich.UUCP (Johnathan Tainter) First you quote me...(in re natural language processing) >> That's my whole point. We don't know how to do all that and I don't >> believe (completely, trying not to be too dogmatic here) that it's the >> lack of cycles that's holding us back. Then you say... >There is one more field where mucho processor in a small package is going to >be required. Robots. Classic SF style robots, not the misnamed things they >use in factories. Also prostheses. Sigh...you really are just going to ignore everything I am saying and go scramble for another identical example. Do you know of any SF style robots which are currently not able to be put into production due to a lack of cycles? Any prostheses? Any that work slowly or off of a ridiculously (physically) huge machine for the application (eg. a prosthesis being driven by a Cray-2)? No. So this is exactly the same point I answered in your previous quote of my text about natural language processing. You don't *know* that SF style robots or prostheses will take enormous amounts of MIPs, you just believe it to be true for some reason without having ever seen a single example. Maybe you're right, we'll just have to wait and see (how long?) >Undoubtedly you have heard the axiom >"Any program will expand to fill all available space." Yes, but that is not an axiom, it is a shibboleth. An axiom is something you can prove. You can't even demonstrate one common example given the next 5 years of processor development. Yes, we have seen it in the past and even in the present. But it's not obvious that this extrapolates into the future in a situation like this. My favorite example is we saw automobiles in the beginning of the century go from (max) 10MPH to 30MPH to 100MPH. But after that first (ca.) 30 years of development extrapolating the curve became ridiculous. The cost of building a car and designing a road system which would transport the average person at 300MPH became ridiculously out of reach. Sure, there's a flaw here in that lots of MIPs won't endanger your life (maybe, I could argue that one also, but it's more socio-technical) but the point where you cross over beyond cost/benefit might exist in a similar fashion. And maybe some day we will build 300MPH passenger cars, *maybe*. You'll get into more and more expensive technology to build this 1000MIP desktop and there just won't be enough of a market for it. Your potential customers will say "gee, I dunno, I can't keep my 100MIP PC you sold me last year busy, you have any applications to justify the cost of this new box?" And the answer may be "no". (don't quibble the numbers, insert 50MIPs and 100MIPs in there.) All I am saying is, not that we will never, or that no one will ever need huge MIPs. I am simply saying that we will probably run out of useful applications to justify them IN MOST CASES. If it takes 1000MIPs to run an SF robot we probably will have had 1000MIPs for 20 years before anyone demonstrates the need. Will you still be in business? It's really not all that subtle, is it? Or am I just really riling the more parochial out there? Perhaps the problem is that people tend to confuse quantity with quality, anyone remember the "cup and a half of flavor" ads? -Barry Shein Pae. T: