On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 10:00:24AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 09:42:07 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 12:18:11AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 22:47:22 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> [...]
> >>> --- a/datastruct/datastruct.tex
> >>> +++ b/datastruct/datastruct.tex
> >>> @@ -2132,7 +2132,7 @@ the one hand, and performance and simplicity on the other.
> >>> Fortunately, the relatively large memories available on modern
> >>> systems have allowed us to prioritize performance and simplicity
> >>> over memory overhead.
> >>> -However, even with today's large-memory systems\footnote{
> >>> +However, even with today's large-memory systems,\footnote{
> >>> Smartphones with gigabytes of memory, anyone?}
> >> Paul, you might want to update the text of this footnote.
> >> Today's smartphones actually have gigabytes of memory...
> >
> > Indeed, that was supposed to serve as an example. For example, back
> > in the day, one might respond to the assertion "All ports serving
> > ocean-going ships are saltwater ports" with "Portland, Oregon, anyone?",
> > thus sarcastically pointing out the fact that the Columbia and Willamette
> > rivers between the Pacific Ocean and the Port of Portland's Terminal 6
> > can both accommodate the ocean-going ships of the 1970s. (Probably not
> > today's much larger ships, though. Plus the Port of Portland isn't what
> > it used to be.)
> Ah, now I think I see the sarcasm.
>
> >
> > But you are right, that is not going to be at all clear to all native
> > English speakers, let alone non-native English speakers.
>
> Looking at the git history, this particular footnote once read:
>
> Smartphones with hundreds of gigabytes of memory, anyone?
>
> after commit 6d4f16cc4c5b ("datastruct: Update an outdated footnote").
> You reverted the change in commit 0d4e8640abf ("datastruct: Updates
> and wordsmithing, take two.").
>
> Weren't you confused when you took 6d4f16cc4c5b ???
Let's see...
This January 2017 webpage announces an 8GB smartphone:
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/55754/zenfone-ar-worlds-first-smartphone-8gb-ram/index.html
And this smartphone history page repeats a claim that the first 1GB
smartphone was in 2011:
https://www.androidauthority.com/smartphone-firsts-946979/
So when I took that patch in late 2018, that footnote was definitely
in need of an update. On the other hand, I am still a little surprised
that even 100MB would fit into my pocket and run off of a tiny battery.
Except that for someone like me, who once used a refrigerator-sized
computer having ferrite-core memory with 4K of 12-bit words, the "hundreds
of megabytes" is more effective than the "gigabytes". Except that
most people reading this book won't have been alive when I last used
that system, and for them a smartphone with less than a gigabyte would
probably be ridiculous in the extreme, and thus sarcastic, but in the
opposite sense than I intended.
So maybe you are right about me having been confused when I took that
patch back in 2018, when I did that wordsmithing back in 2021, and
whenever it changed back to "gigabytes". And perhaps that confusion
was me thinking that it was OK to keep a footnote that is so subject to
change over time and so vulnerable to difference in interpretation. ;-)
> > So I eliminated that footnote and rewrote that sentence as follows:
> >
> > However, even though the year~2022's pocket-sized smartphones
> > sport many gigabytes of memory and its mid-range servers sport
> > terabytes, it is sometimes necessary to take extreme measures
> > to reduce memory overhead.
> >
> > Does that help?
>
> Yes. It is clearer now and no worry of confusion.
Very good, and thank you for your review and comments.
Thanx, Paul
> >>> it is sometimes necessary to take extreme measures to reduce
> >>> memory overhead.
> >> [...]
