Yeah I can’t even think of any recent CPUs that aren’t based on previous designs. Even Apple’s new M1 is an ARM derivative, which itself is based on an ancient computer from the 80s known as the “Acorn”.
CPU architecture wise, you can see the difference between cluttered, old x86 and ARM or even RISC-V chips. They just run so much more efficient, as you can tell with your phone lasting a day or two, or apple silicon consuming a fraction for the same performance.
An example for the ancient backend would be the flight pathing system DAL. (Wendover video)
Fresh starts are always tempting, but they mean throwing out a ton of babies with that bathwater. Re-making old mistakes and solving them with fresh kludges in your nice, new, clean solution.
Like everything else in engineering, it’s a balancing act.
This is super interesting and I had NO IDEA! Makes me very curious how much more efficient an entire fresh start might be with new tech.
Yeah I can’t even think of any recent CPUs that aren’t based on previous designs. Even Apple’s new M1 is an ARM derivative, which itself is based on an ancient computer from the 80s known as the “Acorn”.
This is one of the reasons why Linux doesn’t have a stable in-kernel API (or ABI for that matter): https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
CPU architecture wise, you can see the difference between cluttered, old x86 and ARM or even RISC-V chips. They just run so much more efficient, as you can tell with your phone lasting a day or two, or apple silicon consuming a fraction for the same performance.
An example for the ancient backend would be the flight pathing system DAL. (Wendover video)
Fresh starts are always tempting, but they mean throwing out a ton of babies with that bathwater. Re-making old mistakes and solving them with fresh kludges in your nice, new, clean solution.
Like everything else in engineering, it’s a balancing act.