discussion:Where do we go from here?
Gary D. Duzan
Tue, 08 Nov 1994 13:40:53 -0500
In Message <Pine.SUN.3.91.941107151701.11360Dfirstname.lastname@example.org> ,
Mike Prince <email@example.com> wrote:
=>On Mon, 7 Nov 1994, Raul Deluth Miller wrote:
=>> Raul Miller:
=>> . > also: machine abstraction suitable for describing system
=>> . > capabilities [for estimation and planning purposes]
=>> Obviously, we're not going to even have good estimates all the time
=>> (on what kind of resources we're going to need), but we should be able
=>> to act smart with decent estimates.
=>I'm very interested in discussing this further. Perhaps each object
=>could provide info about it's functionality. Device specific objects
=>would be "tied" to a particular machine and could not migrate. Thus
=>you'd make a grocery list of needs, and look for a workspace having all
=>the objects that couldn't be imported in. The rest could be brought in
=>and away you'd go.
I've thought about this some myself. Some of this might be handled
by language-level hooks, which can get messy if you try to do it
automatically, but programmer hints like "this is a CPU-sucking loop"
or "major I/O here" would be a start. Beyond that, for programs that
are run a number of times, collecting statistics on execution behavior
may help predict what it will do in the future.
Gary D. Duzan
Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts