>>95
Well, just to be clear,
>>95 is not me:
>>85,86. I'm actually not sure whether
>>95 is trolling me or
>>87, but it doesn't really matter.
Being good at manually managing memory is extremely valuable today. I don't care whether anyone here believes it or not, but I've made a lot of money by understanding computers and not treating them like some theoretical toy.
My point is that they'll always have finite speed and storage. It's nothing more than laziness and short-sightedness to hold out for some imaginary gleaming future where the amount of memory or processing power crosses over some arbitrary threshold, and then,
finally, they'll be good enough that we don't have to worry about managing memory. The computer I learned to program on had 64KB of memory, and 32KB of that was used by the OS and BASIC interpreter. A cheap new computer today has 4GB, of which over 3GB is available to applications. That's a factor of
100000 increase -- and guess what -- every "cutting edge" game for sale on the shelf next to that new computer still has to worry about how to efficiently use that 3GB. We're still managing memory manually.
That shiny future that you're waiting for isn't coming because the systems' resources dictate the applications' design, not the other way around. That's not going to change, because I can write an application to make good use of any amount of memory that you can give me. There will never be a computer fast enough or a memory large enough.
I lol'd at scrub another midget.