Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!uceng!dmocsny From: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: 64-bit addresses Message-ID: <3606@uceng.UC.EDU> Date: 12 Feb 90 20:56:20 GMT References: <9708@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <20270@cfctech.cfc.com> <11112@encore.Encore.COM> <753@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> Organization: College of Engg., Univ. of Cincinnati Lines: 25 In article wayne@dsndata.uucp (Wayne Schlitt) writes: > very few programs need more than 4 >gigabytes in either code or data. sure you can do things like mapping >your 20 gig of disc into memory, but do you _really_ need to? Perhaps you mean to say, "very few programs *are able* to take advantage of 4 gigabytes in either code or data, and this is due to only arithmetic increases in the software industry's ability to increase the scope and complexity of its code, while simultaneously preserving or improving reliability and usability." I have every reason to believe that I could benefit from a well-written program that required >4 GB address space. However, given the shortage of people with the type of scalable problems of low Kolmogorov complexity that can readily expand to fill such an architecture, I expect to see the "software gap" widening continuously, until it becomes the main bottleneck to further progress in the computer industry. Might we get to the point where fantastically powerful hardware is widely available at practically no cost, but the entire human race grinds to a standstill because all available intellectual capacity must grapple with trying to program it? Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu