A Crash Course in Modern Hardware by Cliff Click

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 10 янв 2025

Комментарии • 11

  • @anthonyoleinik6472
    @anthonyoleinik6472 3 месяца назад

    Amazing, thank you

  • @dengan699
    @dengan699 7 лет назад +5

    "execution flow is relative" my mind is blown lol

    • @monad_tcp
      @monad_tcp 7 лет назад +2

      only data-flow matter ! execution-flow is an illusion

    • @kamilziemian995
      @kamilziemian995 10 месяцев назад

      The same here.

  • @57skies
    @57skies 8 лет назад +14

    every time you needed to touch disk - you sucked. epic!

  • @leozilla
    @leozilla 8 лет назад +4

    getters and setters just suck as much as cache misses

    • @monad_tcp
      @monad_tcp 7 лет назад +6

      no, they still suck semantically, they're useless, you aren't protecting anything if you have a setter, all the problem is immutability, you have to control mutability, not access

    • @EdRopple
      @EdRopple 7 лет назад

      That's not really true. Immutability has its positives, but in environments where that is undesirable (either for performance or design reasons--while I quite like writing immutable code I recognize that there are plenty of places where it makes for a more complicated model, just look at common rom-rb usage patterns) setters allow for explicit filtering, bounds and range checking, and reactivity (property changes firing on an event bus, for example).
      You may not need any of those right away. And that's totally fine. But setters provide a forward-compatible API for having them later, while being trivially inlined away.

    • @monad_tcp
      @monad_tcp 7 лет назад

      the real problem is sharing state, not having compatibility, it's never a good idea to be forward-compatible by sharing state

    • @EdRopple
      @EdRopple 7 лет назад

      Forward compatibility is unrelated to the sharing of state.