By: Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org), June 23, 2020 9:14 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
hobold (hobold.delete@this.vectorizer.org) on June 23, 2020 1:07 am wrote:
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on June 22, 2020 11:57 pm wrote:
>
> > I've posted the wikipedia PPC->Intel transition page here like 10 times. I've explained
> > many more times than that how this transition will follow that exact same script. And
> > yet people refuse to listen up till the minute that the announcements occur.
> >
> Apple's history of transitions, both m68k -> PowerPC, and PowerPC -> x86, did follow the script
>
> 1. have a complicated and unreliable translator that works good
> enough for stage presentations and very simple programs
>
> 2. quickly abandon the translation layer before it ever learns to deal with the hard cases
>
> Been there, observed that. Twice.
>
> You know how the saying goes: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."
So what is your complaint?
Apple is not in the business of selling perfect AoT binary translators!
Apple wants to move from x86 to "Apple Silicon" as soon as possible with as little fuss as possible. What they have will achieve that goal. NONE of us on the Apple side ever claimed more than that.
Computing is full of impossibly hard problems. And yet things like compilers work! Because most of the time good enough heuristics and hacks are, duh, good enough. There's a particular type of mind (god knows I've met plenty of them) that thinks a mathematical demonstration that something cannot be done perfectly (it's NP-hard, it's prevented by Turing, ...) is somehow relevant to an engineering problem. Grow up! Does Halting Problem affect your actual experience of using compilers or operating systems?
The claim by us was that "Apple can move to ARM easily, and it can do so by following the same script as the two previous times". That is all, and the claim has been validated.
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on June 22, 2020 11:57 pm wrote:
>
> > I've posted the wikipedia PPC->Intel transition page here like 10 times. I've explained
> > many more times than that how this transition will follow that exact same script. And
> > yet people refuse to listen up till the minute that the announcements occur.
> >
> Apple's history of transitions, both m68k -> PowerPC, and PowerPC -> x86, did follow the script
>
> 1. have a complicated and unreliable translator that works good
> enough for stage presentations and very simple programs
>
> 2. quickly abandon the translation layer before it ever learns to deal with the hard cases
>
> Been there, observed that. Twice.
>
> You know how the saying goes: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo."
So what is your complaint?
Apple is not in the business of selling perfect AoT binary translators!
Apple wants to move from x86 to "Apple Silicon" as soon as possible with as little fuss as possible. What they have will achieve that goal. NONE of us on the Apple side ever claimed more than that.
Computing is full of impossibly hard problems. And yet things like compilers work! Because most of the time good enough heuristics and hacks are, duh, good enough. There's a particular type of mind (god knows I've met plenty of them) that thinks a mathematical demonstration that something cannot be done perfectly (it's NP-hard, it's prevented by Turing, ...) is somehow relevant to an engineering problem. Grow up! Does Halting Problem affect your actual experience of using compilers or operating systems?
The claim by us was that "Apple can move to ARM easily, and it can do so by following the same script as the two previous times". That is all, and the claim has been validated.