On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 20:58:40 -0800
Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 11:43:23PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> [great stuff which is absolutely correct]
>
> However, I "Tom Ballard" have figured it all out.
> The problem with all of computer science is the left hand doesn't know
>
> what the right hand is doing. All of these problems are finite and
> can be handled in an "a priori" way. The problem is computer science
> grew up not knowing that so we pretend we don't immediately know
> everything and compute in an "a posteori way".
>
> What I'm talking about is tearing down the concept of a general
> purpose computer. The only reason I can't run all my programs in a
> single memory space and know just exactly what the heck is going to
> happen is it makes poor economic sense to work that way.
>
> Consider a SQL Server for example. For any given schema which will
> a maximum of contain {N1...Nm} records, I can compute "a priori" the
> exact disk location of any record. If memory wasn't so fucking slow
> and there were plenty of it, we could assemble any image of this very
> quickly. All I need is a simple "I/O monster" that does this one
> fixed task in an "a priori way".
>
> So the problem is general purpose computers. We need to be able to
> produce fixed-function devices in a one-off fashion.
>
> [This rant is probably full of shit] :-)
Yes.
For a start, please allow me to refer you to Emmanuel Kant with
reference to 'a priori.'
Regards,
David.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
