Programmer Humor

It's not a stack, it's a heap.

so like, my wife and i kept disagreeing on my cache. in part because she didn't know what i was doing, in part because i hadn't told her explicitly what i was doing. for example, i like to rewear my jeans a few times until they are dirty enough to need washing. i was hanging them on the side of the laundry basket. and would flip and fold and hang them differently to indicate how many times i had worn them i case i had forgotten because my brain is a rusty sieve lately.

Silly commenter.

L1 cache shouldn't be large. Increasing the size of the L1 cache increases the latency. Maybe if you shrink the size of the cloths you wear you can squeeze more into the chair, but the ideal L1 cache has to minimize it's distance from processing. Oversizing adds latency.

Your L2 cache is where you generally try and shove a much bigger cache into it, but it's still got a size constraint for the latency you are after. Further, typically L1 and L2 only serve 1 CPU. To multi-process stuff you'll typically need an even larger L3 cache which is shared among cores.

So the cloths on your chair should be minimal for fast access (L1). You can put more cloths on your bed and dressers or in laundry baskets that can be promoted to the chair if you start needing them more often (L2). You can throw a bunch of cloths into a pile in the corner which sit there for a few years and serve many occasions (L3).

The worst thing is going back to main memory (your closet) to search for specialty cloths you are ultimately going to need to send back to the closet. And heavy help you if you have to swap (do laundry).

While I miss my parents after having moved out, I do appreciate my array of clothes being nonvolatile memory. It's become a comfort, knowing that it stays in the same configuration unless I actively recompile it.

You're saying this as if there isn't multiple piles mixed fresh and dirty clothes with an O(n^2) complexity to find something you want.

I personally prefer to have my clothes indexed in an ordered storage so I know exactly which row in the drawers clean shirts are in.

Wouldn't a pile of clothes have O(n) complexity? They'd still have to go through them one at a time unless the clothes have a really distinct color/shape and are in a somewhat tidy pile s.t. they can be pulled from anywhere.

Unironically this. In a related note, most people confuse "tidy", which is about aesthetics, with "organised" that is about efficiency. That's why my long term storage is extremely tidy, and my short term storage (mostly my desk, and a small table next to it) looks like a modern art installation.

Moms are binary. There are only clean and dirty clothes. Kids are ternary: clean, usable and dirty.

I like the joke, but my pile of clothes is entirely about things that I want to reuse. They're too dirty to hang back up in the wardrobe, but too clean to throw in the dirty clothes basket. I'm sure there's an analogy someone could make for this, but Async's analogy doesn't work in my case.

Except that my L1 cache is more like a top layer, which doesn't hold very well in place because of analogic world being so crumbly.

80/20 rule redux

Real HP:MOR energy right there