🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1Tcfjq#9jMTbv=eric@snark.uu.net> eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>...deleted stuff about why GaAs is hard to work with...
>
>If you're the gambling type, bet your bux on ballistic-transistor technology
>or indium phosphide or even nanotechnology rod logic. But forget GaAs. It is
>almost certainly doomed to remain a niche technology funded by organizations
>that don't care how much of your money they spend for their fun.
>-- 
>      Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.uu.net    (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)

Funny, Convex is currently shipping machines with some GaAs parts in
them.  The parts are made by Vitesse, and are pin compatible with ECL
parts that have similar characteristics, except the GaAs parts are cooler
and slightly faster.  I expect that designers find it no more difficult
to work with than the ECL parts.  We can built product with either type
of part, and you can be sure that we don't stay in business by wasting money.

Difficulties in manufacture and use of new technology have always been
pointed to as reasons not to move into the future.  GaAs has its
weaknesses as well as strengths, but I expect many more GaAs based
products to come to market years before the other exotic technologies
that Eric Raymond mentions.  One or more of them will also make it in
later years, but commercial computer architects must use technology in
immediate reach, not the generation after next.  Of course, if one is too
conservative, one is left at the starting gate.  With the rapidly
changing technology base, technology selection is more of an art than a
science.