In 1999, Butler Lampson gave a talk about the past and future of “computer systems research”. Here are his opinions from 1999 on “what worked”.
|Address spaces||RISC||Fancy type systems|
|Packet nets||Garbage collection||Functional programming|
|Objects / subtypes||Reuse||Formal methods|
|RDB and SQL||Software engineering|
|Bitmaps and GUIs||Distributed computing|
Basically everything that was a Yes in 1999 is still important today. Looking at the Maybe category, we have:
This is, unfortunately, still a Maybe. Between the end of Dennard scaling and the continued demand for compute, chips now expose plenty of the parallelism to the programmer. Concurrency has gotten much easier to deal with, but really extracting anything close to the full performance available isn’t much easier than it was in 1999.
In 2009, Erik Meijer and Butler Lampson talked about this, and Lampson’s comment was that when they came up with threading, locks, and conditional variables at PARC, they thought they were creating something that programmers could use to take advantage of parallelism, but that they now have decades of evidence that they were wrong. Lampson further remarks that to do parallel programming, what you need to do is put all your parallelism into a little box and then have a wizard go write the code in that box. Not much has changed since 2009.
Also, note that I’m using the same criteria to judge all of these. Whenever you say something doesn’t work, someone will drop in say that, no wait, here’s a PhD that demonstrates that someone has once done this thing, or here are nine programs that demonstrate that Idris is, in fact, widely used in large scale production systems. I take Lampson’s view, which is that if the vast majority of programmers are literally incapable of using a certain class of technologies, that class of technologies has probably not succeeded.
On recent advancements in parallelism, Intel recently added features that make it easier to take advantage of trivial parallelism by co-scheduling multiple applications on the same machine without interference, but outside of a couple big companies, no one’s really taking advantage of this yet. They also added hardware support for STM recently, but it’s still not clear how much STM helps with usability when designing large scale systems.
If this was a Maybe in 1999 it’s certainly a No now. In the 80s and 90s a lot of folks, probably the majority of folks, believed RISC was going to take over the world and x86 was doomed. In 1991, Apple, IBM, and Motorola got together to create PowerPC (PPC) chips that were going to demolish Intel in the consumer market. They opened the Somerset facility for chip design, and collected a lot of their best folks for what was going to be a world changing effort. At the upper end of the market, DEC’s Alpha chips were getting twice the performance of Intel’s, and their threat to the workstation market was serious enough that Microsoft ported Windows NT to the Alpha. DEC started a project to do dynamic translation from x86 to Alpha; at the time the project started, the projected performance of x86 basically running in emulation on Alpha was substantially better than native x86 on Intel chips.
In 1995, Intel released the Pentium Pro. At the time, it had better workstation integer performance than anything else out there, including much more expensive chips targeted at workstations, and its floating point performance was within a factor of 2 of high-end chips. That immediately destroyed the viability of the mainstream Apple/IBM/Moto PPC chips, and in 1998 IBM pulled out of the Somerset venture1 and everyone gave up on really trying to produce desktop class PPC chips. Apple continued to sell PPC chips for a while, but they had to cook up bogus benchmarks to make the chips look even remotely competitive. By the time DEC finished their dynamic translation efforts, x86 in translation was barely faster than native x86 in floating point code, and substantially slower in integer code. While that was a very impressive technical feat, it wasn’t enough to convince people to switch from x86 to Alpha, which killed DEC’s attempts to move into the low-end workstation and high-end PC market.
In 1999, high-end workstations were still mostly RISC machines, and supercomputers were a mix of custom chips, RISC chips, and x86 chips. Today, Intel dominates the workstation market with x86, and the supercomputer market has also moved towards x86. Other than POWER, RISC ISAs were mostly wiped out (like PA-RISC) or managed to survive by moving to the low-margin embedded market (like MIPS), which wasn’t profitable enough for Intel to pursue with any vigor. You can see a kind of instruction set arbitrage that MIPS and ARM have been able to take advantage of because of this. Cavium and ARM will sell you a network card that offloads a lot of processing to the NIC, which have a bunch of cheap MIPS and ARM processors, respectively, on board. The low-end processors aren’t inherently better at processing packets than Intel CPUS; they’re just priced low enough that Intel won’t compete on price because they don’t want to cannibalize their higher margin chips with sales of lower margin chips. MIPS and ARM have no such concerns because MIPS flunked out of the high-end processor market and ARM has yet to get there. If the best thing you can say about RISC chips is that they manage to exist in areas where the profit margins are too low for Intel to care, that’s not exactly great evidence of a RISC victory. That Intel ceded the low end of the market might seem ironic considering Intel’s origins, but they’ve always been aggressive about moving upmarket (they did the same thing when they transitioned from DRAM to SRAM to flash, ceding the barely profitable DRAM market to their competitors).
If there’s any threat to x86, it’s ARM, and it’s their business model that’s a threat, not their ISA. And as for their ISA, ARM’s biggest inroads into mobile and personal computing came with ARMv7 and earlier ISAs, which aren’t really more RISC-like than x862. In the area in which they dominated, their “modern” RISC-y ISA, ARMv8, is hopeless and will continue to be hopeless for years, and they’ll continue to dominate with their non-RISC ISAs.
In retrospect, the reason RISC chips looked so good in the 80s was that you could fit a complete high-performance RISC microprocessor onto a single chip, which wasn’t true of x86 chips at the time. But as we got more transistors, this mattered less.
It’s possible to nitpick RISC being a no by saying that modern processors translate x86 ops into RISC micro-ops internally, but if you listened to talk at the time, people thought that having an external RISC ISA would be so much lower overhead that RISC would win, which has clearly not happened. Moreover, modern chips also do micro-op fusion in order to fuse operations into decidedly un-RISC-y operations. A clean RISC ISA is a beautiful thing. I sometimes re-read Dick Sites’s explanation of the Alpha design just to admire it, but it turns out beauty isn’t really critical for the commercial success of an ISA.
This is a huge Yes now. Every language that’s become successful since 1999 has GC and is designed for all normal users to use it to manage all memory. In five years, Rust or D might make that last sentence untrue, but even if that happens, GC will still be in the yes category.
Yes, I think, although I’m not 100% sure what Lampson was referring to here. Lampson said that reuse was a maybe because it sometimes works (for UNIX filters, OS, DB, browser) but was also flaky (for OLE/COM). There are now widely used substitutes for OLE; service oriented architectures also seem to fit his definition of re-use.
Looking at the No category, we have:
Still a No. You can make a case that many things we have today are inspired by capabilities, but capabilities as they were originally presented still aren’t really on the horizon. I find capabilities to be interesting because a lot of people I know went through a phase when they were enamored of them, but everyone who’s tried to implement them seems to become disillusioned.
I’m not the only person to observe this – Lampson has mentioned elsewhere that none of the folks who worked with him on the CAL TSS system (perhaps the first capability based system with actual users) wanted to build capability based systems after that experience. In that interview, Lampson also talks about how, given the very large complexity burden, the ROI of capabilities was very low, not just on their system, but in other systems that he knows of, too.
The counterargument to the No answer is that capabilities exist in mobile and that mobile is taking over the world, which makes the answer Yes because most consumer OS share will be on some sort of capability-like system in the forseeable future.
It depends on what qualifies as a fancy type system, but if “fancy” means something at least as fancy as Scala or Haskell, this is a No. That’s even true if you relax the standard to an ML-like type system. Boy, would I love to be able to do everyday programming in an ML (F# seems particularly nice to me), but we’re pretty far from that.
Maybe I’ll get to use F# for non-hobby projects in another 16 years, but things don’t look promising.
I’d lean towards Maybe on this one, although this is arguably a No. Functional languages are still quite niche, but functional programming ideas are now mainstream, at least for the HN/reddit/twitter crowd.
You might say that I’m being too generous to functional programming here because I have a soft spot for immutability. That’s fair. In 1982, James Morris wrote:
Functional languages are unnatural to use; but so are knives and forks, diplomatic protocols, double-entry bookkeeping, and a host of other things modern civilization has found useful. Any discipline is unnatural, in that it takes a while to master, and can break down in extreme situations. That is no reason to reject a particular discipline. The important question is whether functional programming in unnatural the way Haiku is unnatural or the way Karate is unnatural.
Haiku is a rigid form poetry in which each poem must have precisely three lines and seventeen syllables. As with poetry, writing a purely functional program often gives one a feeling of great aesthetic pleasure. It is often very enlightening to read or write such a program. These are undoubted benefits, but real programmers are more results-oriented and are not interested in laboring over a program that already works.
They will not accept a language discipline unless it can be used to write programs to solve problems the first time – just as Karate is occasionally used to deal with real problems as they present themselves. A person who has learned the discipline of Karate finds it directly applicable even in bar-room brawls where no one else knows Karate. Can the same be said of the functional programmer in today’s computing environments? No.
Many people would make the same case today. I don’t agree, but that’s a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.
Maybe? Formal methods have had high impact in a few areas. Model checking is omnipresent in chip design. Microsoft’s driver verification tool has probably had more impact than all formal chip design tools combined, clang now has a fair amount of static analysis built in, and so on and so forth. But, formal methods are still quite niche, and the vast majority of developers don’t apply formal methods.
No. In 1995, David Parnas had a talk at ICSE (the premier software engineering conference) about the fact that even the ICSE papers that won their “most influential paper award” (including two of Parnas’s papers) had very little impact on industry.
Basically all of Parnas’s criticisms are still true today. One of his suggestions, that there should be distinct conferences for researchers and for practitioners has been taken up, but there’s not much cross-pollination between academic conferences like ICSE and FSE and practitioner-focused conferences like StrangeLoop and PyCon.
Yes. In fact RPCs are now so widely used that I’ve seen multiple RPCs considered harmful talks.
Yes. These are so ubiquitous that startups with zero distributed systems expertise regularly use distributed systems provided by Amazon or Microsoft, and it’s totally fine. The systems aren’t perfect and there are some infamous downtime incidents, but if you compare the bit error rate of random storage from 1999 to something like EBS or Azure Blob Storage, distributed systems don’t look so bad.
Maybe? As with formal methods, a handful of projects with very high real world impact get a lot of mileage out of security research. But security still isn’t a first class concern for most programmers.
What’s worked in computer systems research?
|Objects / subtypes||Yes||Yes|
|RDB and SQL||Yes||Yes|
|Bitmaps and GUIs||Yes||Yes|
|Fancy type systems||No||No|
Not only is every Yes from 1999 still Yes today, seven of the Maybes and Nos were upgraded, and only one was downgraded. And on top of that, there are a lot of topics like neural networks that weren’t even worth adding to the list as a No that are an unambiguous Yes today.
In 1999, I was taking the SATs and applying to colleges. Today, I’m not really all that far into my career, and the landscape has changed substantially; many previously impractical academic topics are now widely used in industry. I probably have twice again as much time until the end of my career and things are changing faster now than they were in 1999. After reviewing Lampson’s 1999 talk, I’m much more optimistic about research areas that haven’t yielded much real-world impact (yet), like capability based computing and fancy type systems. It seems basically impossible to predict what areas will become valuable over the next thirty years.
Thanks to Seth Holloway, Leah Hanson, Ian Whitlock, Lindsey Kuper, Chris Ball, Steven McCarthy, Joe Wilder, David Wragg and Alex Clemmer for comments/discussion.