"cr88192" wrote:
[...code styles and performance]
....>>> if we write in C, ...
....>>> if we target system libraries, ...
>> I can't agree on this one.
>> Hardware-drivers can be written totally independent from OS and of
>> course every brand will need its own driver.
>> You probably mean the function-links to the OS's API which usually
>> come as a set of DLLs that show only part of hardware capabilities.
>> And I see no way in windoze to overcome this detours.
>> Unlike ATAPI, VESA and legacy ****ts, standards for 2D/3D Graphic
>> are unfortunately still missing, so I heavy daubt that a compiler
>> can optimize hardware related code without knowing all details.
> it can optimize most user-written code fairly well, and compete fairly
well
> with "mundanely written" assembler code, as was demonstrated long ago
with
> early FORTRAN compilers, and later with C.
> most people who write assembler, just work on getting it done, and so
> produce code that is on average slower than the compiler output.
Yes, but let aside hobby coders yet, I think professional programmers
reason for using ASM instead of any HLL "is" performance.
Ok, assembler isn't the lowest possible level and will lack on limits
given by used libraries, but we can always avoid Libs.
[****tability of hw-drivers ...]
....
> now, these are not compiler optimizations, but library and OS-level
> optimizations.
Who will optimises these (dll) libraries ?
Vendor drivers are obviously written in HLL and whenever I disassemble
one of these, I find bloated detouring BS for no reason.
Feel free to check this yourself on any windoze driver.
> likewise, do we really expect each and every app to need to worry about
the
> details of, for example, the ATA and SATA interfaces, how FAT32 and NTFS
> work, ... or is it better, to leave most of this up to the OS's
drivers?...
Ok, this are well defined standards and may be optimised for a few OS.
[...power]
>>>> I think the fusion generator above our heads got enough power for
>>>> all our needs and may last for 'some' time.
>>> the problem is getting it in usably large amounts...
>> 1..4 KiloWatt/square-meter sound a lot when I look at the roof surface
>> of a small house. The problem is still how to store it, we could
>> use anchient methods like lift a huge stone or what's already in use
>> for decades: Hydroelectric plants use spare energy to pump water
uphill.
> here, I use some lead/acid batteries, and really the
capacity/volume/weight
> tradeoffs are pretty poor, for example, 72 cubic inches only holds
around
> 500VA (approx 500W).
> lithium ion and NiMH batteries are a lot better, but still fairly low
> density, and I suspect a reasonable-sized capacity for an android is
likely
> to to be closer to around 850kVA (or, about a whole damn car full of
> lead-acid batters, or a large backpack of NiMH batteries).
>
> several orders of magnitude more power could be extracted from 1L of
> gasoline (or ethanol, or whatever else).
>
> for example, assuming an approx 25% conversion efficiency (poor quality
> 4-cycle and a generator) and butanol fuel (lower energy than gasoline),
we
> still get around 7.5MW, or around 9x the storage of a backpack full of
> batteries.
Yes, at the very moment it is that way.
Let's wait for better results from reseach on:
Piezo, Peltier, organic photovoltaic...'moving field' motors/generators.
Things are already in motion ..., also on the 'burning fuel' front.
[nuclear power..] yes to pro and cons...
> IMO, it is about like people being afraid of carrying a gun (fearing
someone > might steal it and turn on them) in a crowd of people with guns.
it makes
> little sense...
Guns aren't made to keep peace within neighbours ...
When you sow wind, expect to earn storm.
[robots and androids]
....
> then they are hardly human-like...
Why should machines showup/act human like ?
I think machines are there to help humans rather than to replace 'em.
>> I look one more time on how Nature decided to power us.
>> Electricity is just used for sensing and control, while motions avoid
>> rotating at all and are driven really effective by chemical power.
>> Why not 'design' faster horses or grow big birds to ride on it ?
>> and for androids, we could train apes.... oh, another movie yet :)
> possibly, but apes would still need better treatment than androids, and
> could not be as effectively used (un-augmented) for tasks requiring a
good
> deal of processing power.
Do you think about mechanical solders which kill each other for fun ?
what a waste..
take over our jobs ?
what is total human****p then at all good for ?
or 37C warm cheap whores ?
now I prefer the natural way, including the often fishy smell :)
__
wolfgang
|
