<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>La-Z-Boy on Dispatch3 Inc.</title><link>https://dispatch3.com/tags/la-z-boy/</link><description>Recent content in La-Z-Boy on Dispatch3 Inc.</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://dispatch3.com/tags/la-z-boy/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Trouble With Multicore</title><link>https://dispatch3.com/posts/the_trouble_with_multicore/</link><pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://dispatch3.com/posts/the_trouble_with_multicore/</guid><description>IEEE Spectrum has an article by David Patterson titled &amp;ldquo;The Trouble With Multicore&amp;rdquo;.
I particularly like this paragraph:
One of the biggest factors, though, is the degree of motivation. In the past, programmers could just wait for transistors to get smaller and faster, allowing microprocessors to become more powerful. So programs would run faster without any new programming effort, which was a big disincentive to anyone tempted to pioneer ways to write parallel code.</description></item></channel></rss>