🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <37196@bbn.COM>, slackey@bbn.com (Stan Lackey) writes:
> RISC is indeed a technology window, driven largely by the amount of
> stuff you can fit in a chip...

OK, fair 'nuff.  As soon as we can put an unlimited amount of stuff on a
chip (and do it without increasing delays or other limitations), we'll be
beyond that technology window, I guess...

>...Look at what is being added now that you
> can fit more than a simple CPU core in a chip:
[7 examples which are not in the least at variance with RISC approach]

> The trend in computer evolution is truly toward greater hardware
> complexity.  This has been demonstrated countless times...

Sure.  Just look how much more complex a CDC 6600 is than, say, a 7090.
(For the younger set:  It's several times less complex.)

No, the trends for faster machines have frequently involved producing
*simpler* designs because it wasn't possible to make a machine fast with
all the extra baggage.

> There is a true need for complexity...

not demonstrated.

>...How many times when reading this
> newsgroup do you see things like, "Yes but that chip doesn't have <my
> favorite feature>"...

Rarely, if ever...but even if I did, so what?  <my favorite feature> is a
lousy criterion for what to put in hardware.  Folks, we're not discussing
machines to indulge your whims; we're talking about what it takes to get a
job done.

> Companies must make money.  They will do this by making not tiny
> low-cost RISC micros, but the most complex thing they can fit in a
> chip...

Sure.  That's why Sun introduced the very complex SPARC as a successor
to the much simpler 680x0 machines...or why intel came out with the more
complex 860 to up the ante over the RISCy 386, right???
-- 
Dick Dunn      UUCP: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd           (303)449-2870
   ...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.