[DecoPerson]

I don't think he was talking about present day technology; rather, he was referring to abstract machines.

Whoever taught you computer science must have had a very pessimistic attitude, which is surprising to me as most of the academics I've talked with think the computers of the distant future will have no limitations.

In the preset day, though, we have limited time and must choose our battles carefully. I respect the OP for his attempts, if a little a misguided. Just ask any active member of the Linux kernel and they'll tell you how often they see such people undertake similarly bold approaches which deliver little outcome (and, hopefully, a life lesson...)

[forthefuture]

> academics I've talked with think the computers of the distant future will have no limitations.

This could mean a lot of liberal arts students. Academics aren't in any advantageous position to understand the progress of technology. Computers necessarily have limits because of their physical properties of matter and energy.

Thinking that "future = no limits = no scarcity = everyone gets everything they want even fantasy" is kind of a logical leap that most people in tech are not comfortable making. Maybe "academics" are more optimistic because they don't know anything, and it's easier to believe we'll have flying cars in the future than to realize that there will never be a time on Earth that it makes economical sense to fight gravity for an individual transport medium.

[rtens]

One really nice thing about academia is that "unlimited resources" are indeed a valid premise while you are in design space. It's only when you start implementing your idea that you have to face a limited universe.

But on the other, for somebody has programmed in the 60s, the computing power and memory we have nowadays probably seem "limitless" in comparison.