• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
OT: Re: Shit - it's all true
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

OT: Re: Shit - it's all true


  • Subject: OT: Re: Shit - it's all true
  • From: Courtney Schwartz <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:03:27 -0400

This discussion doesn't properly belong on this list. Could you at least mark it with 'OT' if you don't wish to discuss it privately?

That aside, blanket statements like "RISC is faster than CISC" and similar remarks don't lend anything to the discussion. The ad hominem "this chip is better, my computer is better than yours" argument is oversimplified at best... but generally a waste of everyone's time.

Furthermore, this RISC vs. CISC thing has been discussed to death for years, far before this current thread. Let's all move on.

Now... does anyone have any remarks about how this will affect the future of AppleScript? Any speculation on how maintainable AppleScript support will be over the architecture change? Perhaps, having done this shift before, Apple has this solved...

Does the architecture shift perhaps support Apple's position to leverage the popular power of familiarity and de facto standardization in its marketing efforts, as it did with SMB and Unix compatibility? Would such a standards-minded approach eventually lead to the redesign of AppleScript?



Long-winded disgruntlement follows. :)

You can read any number of such "this tech is better" statements on pop science no-content web sites. But then, it's generally simpler to produce opinions than hard facts. Opinions are not accountable for accuracy. Such writing is emotionally "pungent", but rhetorically weak.

Opinion has its place; don't misunderstand me. But it's more difficult to make a Joe-Schmoe-accessible article about different chip design purposes, because you have to assume expertise in design; it's harder to make an emotional read on how these design differences create the dazzling array of benchmarks, biased towards those different purposes... and thus why the numbers do little to describe the chip, and more to describe the tests themselves.

Real engineering discussions have more subtle arguments; they pay due respect to the complexity of the problem. They don't have a simple, pat "this is better, that is bad" slogan that people can take and run with, deceiving readers with the feeling that they somehow know more than before. An article/discussion with a strong opinion doesn't mean it has strong content. In fact, it's usually the opposite, because it uses emotional response to psychologically override rational response to the subtleties that develop mature arguments.

Dogma is this opinion-reliant rhetoric carried to its illogical extreme... It's inferior reasoning, and not befitting the technology community. It degrades the quality of this mailing list.

(And of course such empty discussions do not even begin to address discrepancies that occur when developers, algorithms and compilers optimize more for one design than another... the *technical* decisions that face this *technical* list.)

And honestly, I feel that a public mailing list of any sort isn't even the proper forum for this type discussion. It's not functionally suited. If we all really want to know the differences between designs, we would be reading well-solidified and reviewed computer engineering texts on the topic, and not this mailing list... because that's the proper place for such well-established information, IMHO.

Mailing lists gather a wide array of people, and as such, are best suited for solving problems at hand, but not for finding authoritative answers. Insert the usual caution about arguments on the Internet... and why employers usually hire for university degrees and professional accomplishment, and not mailing list membership. It's a difference of purpose. Also, the summary of stats on registers, instruction sets, power consumption and heat dissipation is interesting, but not appropriate for this AppleScript mailing list, or even the mailing list medium in general, don't you think?


Courtney Schwartz

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: OT: Re: Shit - it's all true
      • From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>
References: 
 >Re: Shit - it's all true (From: Andrew Oliver <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Shit - it's all true (From: Allen Rongone <email@hidden>)
 >Re: Shit - it's all true (From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Suppress XML declaration in XMLLib [with apologies for typo]
  • Next by Date: Quark 6.5 Production Scripting Question
  • Previous by thread: Re: Shit - it's all true
  • Next by thread: Re: OT: Re: Shit - it's all true
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread