Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Sep 2007 19:52 UTC, submitted by Hendra
Permalink for comment 272438
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
While this is true for the average user, this is an ideal solution for the cost-sensitive software developer.
With two cores it is relatively easy for a developer to implement a concurrent algorithm that works correctly for two concurrent threads, yet fails miserably for three or more. In contrast, however, those algorithms which work for correctly for three threads almost always (a) work for any number of threads (subject to performance scalability issues), or (b) appear on their face to be specifically limited in the number of concurrent threads which are correctly supported.
With three cores, a developer will be able, much more efficiently, to catch and repair such errors before release. Once such machines are released, I would expect them to be targeted towards developers writing concurrent software.