Article View: comp.arch
Article #22614Re: IBM RISC
From: Scott E. Schwartz
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1990 07:19
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1990 07:19
16 lines
1300 bytes
1300 bytes
In article <00405@sarek.UUCP> gsarff@sarek.UUCP (Gary Sarff) writes: >There seem to be two different camps here. I have seen numerous postings in >this group saying "architecture/machine xxx (sparc,mips,...) will do better, >look at all the applications/software base we have for the xxx architecture." >The poster above, says porting is nothing more than recompiling. We can't >have it both ways. Don't take my word for it, look at recent history. Three years ago a Sun4 was just a wet dream. Now SPARC is Sun's flagship architecture. If porting software was that serious a problem we'd know it. Ditto for MIPS, ibm RT, Moto 88K, etc, of course. Granted, the key to all this is coding applications in a high level language and for a portable OS. -- Scott Schwartz schwartz@cs.psu.edu "the same idea is applied today in the use of slide rules." -- Don Knuth
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<En$_--@cs.psu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!shire!schwartzReferences:
<9376@portia.Stanford.EDU> <E58.+d@cs.psu.edu> <00405@sarek.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!shire!schwartz From: schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott E. Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: IBM RISC Message-ID: <En$_--@cs.psu.edu> Date: 26 Feb 90 07:19:03 GMT References: <9376@portia.Stanford.EDU> <E58.+d@cs.psu.edu> <00405@sarek.UUCP> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Penn State University Computer Science Lines: 16