DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > Miscellaneous > Programming

Programming C, bash, Python, Perl, PHP, Java, you name it.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 31st March 2009
TerryP's Avatar
TerryP TerryP is offline
Arp Constable
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,547
Thanked 112 Times in 104 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
There was an article about this somewhere, but.. 128-bit is probably the end of the line.
You're probably right, by ~8,800 A.D. or so the earth will probably be a pile of atomized ash, by way of a jihad against the thinking machines. So by the time anything requiring more limits then a true 128-bit architecture can provide comes on line, we'll be to darn busy to care ;-)
__________________
My Journal

Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''.
Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2009
robbak's Avatar
robbak robbak is offline
Real Name: Robert Backhaus
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 366
Thanked 40 Times in 39 Posts
Default

Only part of going to 64 bit is the <4G address space. The other part is being able to crunch 64 bits on each clock cycle. True, hardly anyone is programming to use this ability, but it will come.
As the More's law corollaries continue to hand us more and more transistors on a platter, we'll have to find somethings to do with them. Part of that will be 128 bits per byte.
(Remember: 128 bits is an ipv6 address: big routers will want to be able to handle these addresses in one swop: So we will see specialized 128-bit processors in the near future!)
__________________
The only dumb question is a question not asked.
The only dumb answer is an answer not given.
Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2009
drhowarddrfine drhowarddrfine is offline
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 358
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSDfan666 View Post
Really? Why? I seriously doubt we'll need systems with >= 16384 Petabytes of memory.
You'll need it to run Windows9.
Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2009
BSDfan666 BSDfan666 is offline
Real Name: N/A, this is the interweb.
Helpful companion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,223
Thanked 193 Times in 184 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine View Post
You'll need it to run Windows9.
Fortunately, that won't be happening.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
2038, unix millenium bug, y2k38

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2007-2010, the authors
Daemon image copyright ©1988, Marshall Kirk McKusick