We don't believe we've solved the multicore-programming problem. But we think we've built an environment in which a certain class of problems can take advantage of the multicore architecture.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
As much as we may want to withdraw into a world of pure problem solving, we have to acknowledge that the most successful architectures are the ones you can actually convince someone to implement.
Twenty-five years ago, the notion was you could create a general problem-solver software that could solve problems in many different domains. That just turned out to be totally wrong.
Briefly, to program it requires an absolute understanding of how all 65,536 processors are interconnected.
Nothing is as dangerous in architecture as dealing with separated problems. If we split life into separated problems we split the possibilities to make good building art.
The problem with digital architecture is that an algorithm can produce endless variations, so an architect has many choices.
To make architecture with any real value is a massive challenge.
I find languages that support just one programming paradigm constraining.
I'm not very good at multi-tasking. Most people aren't, but they think they are. The mind is really better when you're really focused on one thing.
I think that that multiplatform development is what's on the mind of most high-end PC developers now... this is really the first time in the industry's history that we've had console machines that can handle all that PC developers can deliver.
I remember the difficulty we had in the beginning replacing magnetic cores in memories and eventually we had both cost and performance advantages. But it wasn't at all clear in the beginning.
No opposing quotes found.