（下面摘抄访谈部分内容）
For example, open-source code can produce thousands of binaries, tuned perfectly to the configurations of individual users, whereas commercial software usually will exist in only a few versions. A generic binary executable file must include things like inefficient "sync" instructions that are totally inappropriate for many installations; such wastage goes away when the source code is highly configurable. This should be a huge win for open source.
例如，开放源代码能带来数以千计的二进制包，可以完美地针对每个独立用户进行配置，但是商业软件通常只有几种版本。一个通用的二进制可执行文件必须包含很多指令来“抹平”不同运行环境间的差异，这对于很多安装环境来说并不合适；然而源代码是高度可配置的，因此这种浪费也就随之消失了。这是开源软件的巨大优势。
I don’t want to duck your question entirely. I might as well flame a bit about my personal unhappiness with the current trend toward multicore architecture. To me, it looks more or less like the hardware designers have run out of ideas, and that they’re trying to pass the blame for the future demise of Moore’s Law to the software writers by giving us machines that work faster only on a few key benchmarks! I won’t be surprised at all if the whole multithreading idea turns out to be a flop, worse than the "Itanium" approach that was supposed to be so terrific—until it turned out that the wished-for compilers were basically impossible to write.
我不想回避你的问题。也许我个人的一些观点会为当前流行的多核架构趋势泼一盆冷水。在我看来，这种现象或多或少是由于硬件设计者已经无计可施了导致的，他们将Moore定律失效的责任推脱给软件开发者，而他们给我们的机器只是在某些指标上运行得更快了而已。如果多线程的想法被证明是失败的，我一点都不会感到惊讶，也许这比当年的Itanium还要糟糕——人们基本上无法开发出它所需要的编译器。
The machine I use today has dual processors. I get to use them both only when I’m running two independent jobs at the same time; that’s nice, but it happens only a few minutes every week. If I had four processors, or eight, or more, I still wouldn’t be any better off, considering the kind of work I do—even though I’m using my computer almost every day during most of the day. So why should I be so happy about the future that hardware vendors promise? They think a magic bullet will come along to make multicores speed up my kind of work; I think it’s a pipe dream. (No—that’s the wrong metaphor! "Pipelines" actually work for me, but threads don’t. Maybe the word I want is "bubble.")
我今天所用的机器有两个处理器。而我只有在同时运行两个独立的作业时，才会用到这两个处理器；这样很好，不过每周这种情况只会发生几分钟而已。如果我有四个、八个甚至更多的处理器，我同样得不到任何好处，想一想我是做什么的——我几乎每天每时每刻都在使用计算机。所以，我为什么要为硬件供应商承诺的未来而高兴？他们认为多核的到来可以为我的工作提速，我认为这是“白日梦”（pipe dream）。（不——这个比喻不准确！我是会用“Pipeline”的，但是不会用线程。也许我应该说这是个“泡影（bubble）”）
That question is almost contradictory, because I’m basically advising young people to listen to themselves rather than to others, and I’m one of the others. Almost every biography of every person whom you would like to emulate will say that he or she did many things against the "conventional wisdom" of the day. Still, I hate to duck your questions even though I also hate to offend other people’s sensibilities—given that software methodology has always been akin to religion.
我通常都是建议年轻人要相信自己的判断，而不是其他人。我就是“其他人”中的一员。大概每一位你要效仿的“伟大人物”的传记上都会记载，他或她曾经向当时的“传统智慧”发起过挑战。 虽然如此，我并不想回避这个问题，尽管我也不想触动其他人敏感的神经——有一种软件方法学已经类似于某种宗教了。
I also must confess to a strong bias against the fashion for reusable code. To me, "re-editable code" is much, much better than an untouchable black box or toolkit. I could go on and on about this. If you’re totally convinced that reusable code is wonderful, I probably won’t be able to sway you anyway, but you’ll never convince me that reusable code isn’t mostly a menace.
我还必须承认我对“可重用代码”的流行保有强烈的偏见。对我来说，“可重编辑的代码”要远远胜于一个无法触及的黑盒或工具集。就这个问题我还可以不断地说下去。如果你对可重用代码深信不疑，我可能丝毫无法动摇你，但是你也无法让我相信，可重用代码并不总是麻烦制造者。
没有评论:
发表评论