Yep, and the doom mongers said "too little, to late"
The y2k problem was known about and being catered for in the 80s in the systems where it mattered, so there was some future thinking going on.
I also got to thinking more about my statement "cross bridges when you come to them" and the parallel of the millennium bug and I dont really see it. Concluding that a lack of the former precludes events such as the latter is like responding to me that I'm advocating developing a program that ius broken and doesnt work because you'll cross that [doesnt work] bridge when you come to [release the program] -> there's a base level of foresight that's necessary and also it must be considerd what is actually worth thinking about in terms of future need.
Totally agree, though Moore's law shouldnt be an excuse for burning up resources unnecessarily but the games industry tends to do it (release games that are possibly beyond the capabilities of all but the very best hardware) and it drives the hardware companies to play a useful game of catchup. Quite mercenary, IMHODepending on the situation it DOES make sense to look into the future. Though "performance" probably is not the biggest problem, because if the problem arises somewhere in the future, available hardware will probably be able to handle it.



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks





Reply With Quote

Bookmarks