64-bit

[Just Visiting]

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> "Just Visiting" <nospam at aol.com> wrote in message 
> news:hbdk23$2qoi$1 at digitalmars.com...
> >
> > They usually
> > judge from the standpoint of their own momentary CPU
> > performance requirements.
> 
> I can say exactly the same about people who defend setting their minimum 
> system specs higher than they need to be. As soon as most developers get 
> their hands on a new piece of hardware, all of a sudden they think no one 
> else should be using anything less, no matter how useful or widespread the 
> lower-end stuff may still be. And that's been going on for ages as well.
> 

Not sure what you are talking about. I get paid for improving responsiveness
of programs - sometimes by using assembly language if deemed necessary.
I do not consult anybody what hardware they should be using, as long as it
remains compatible with my software.


> > If I'd use your comments during my next business meeting
> > we'd all have a good laugh. But I won't because I'll give
> > you the chance to think this over:
> 
> I couldn't care less what a bunch of suits think about my comments. If they 
> even exist...this sudden grab for professionalism seems quite contrived 
> considering the arrogance of your original post:
> 
> "Therefore 32-bit compilers are just wasting my time,"

Arrogance? Does it irk you that much if someone dumps a 32-bit
compiler in order to enjoy an impressive speed increase without
substantial changes to the software?


> Take a minute to think first the next time you want to jump in and tell a 
> group of people that their compiler is wasting your time.

Sounds almost like I have offended D's lead developer. Sorry 'bout that.
But you are absolutely right. 32-bit compilers - not just DmD - are
wasting my time. For approximately equal results I'd have to add
either assembly language to time critical sections of my 32-bit
code, or just use a 64-bit compiler with moderate adaptations.


> > it was the guy who is tweaking software, so a bunch of
> > computers can survive their replacement by a year or two.
> >
> 
> That's exactly my point. There are plenty of 32-bit systems out there that 
> are perfectly useful, but then people like you go around waving a "32-bit is 
> antique, support for it is useless" flag. And now you suddenly turn around 
> and try to defend your disregard for an older piece of hardware...for the 
> sake of hardware longevity? What?

I won't deny that for certain people 32-bit systems are still perfectly useful.
Just my clients do not share this view for a series of good reasons. Even
their older systems tend to be 64-bit nowadays. Migration towards 64-bit
OSes is under way. There is still 32-bit compatibility if needed. At the same
time certain programs will perform drastically better when compiled to 64-bit.
Replacement thus can be postponed which is usually the best way to keep
CFOs happy.