Re: NegativeArraySizeException ... IndexOutOfBoundsException ...
On 01/12/2010 02:08 PM, Lew wrote:
That's about 200 clock
cycles of latency on a modern processor, far more on the future
processors of 2074.
I am not an electrical engineer, but I doubt general processor clock
speeds are ever going to go significantly further than the 3.5-ish GHz
that we have now, due primarily to significant power dissipation issues
as well as the fact that the chip will be too damn big. To my knowledge,
we are hitting the physical limits of making an individual core much
more powerful.
So I find it far mare likely that the processors of 2074 will be 3.5
megacore processors with each core having the performance of, say, a
Pentium IV.
Either we'll find a sparse representation for such arrays, we'll
invent much denser storage media and better ways to access them, we'll
find some way to keep the processor busy during that latency, or we'll
use super-luminal access speeds, perhaps through quantum
superposition.
It's been years since I last looked at quantum computers, but the
progress on them has been slow. The most powerful one I can find
evidence of right now was 8 qubits, which used a design that I recall
maxing out around 40 qubits. I also recall many of the available designs
have theoretical capacities below 100 qubits which makes them inadequate
for useful purposes.
I also recall quantum superposition doesn't allow you to transfer
information at superliminal speeds. Then again, my knowledge of quantum
mechanics is extremely poor, so I could be wrong.
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth