🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4+tnk9#.tcmay@netcom.com>, tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
writes:
|> Another comment on the 432.
|> 
|> Someone over in comp.arch, in a thread titled "Computer architects
|> forced to change careers" or somesuch, just railed against the 432 as
|> an example of everything bad in architecture and the cause of layoffs
|> in the computer industry.
|> 
|> I posted a comment pointing to this thread and suggested that the 432
|> experience should indeed be studied. Those following this thread might
|> want to check it out.

(Actually, I'm here because of Tim's posting in comp.arch)

I was a manager when the 432 was announced.  With commendable
dedication to principle I delegated attending a seminar Intel had
invited us to.  The woman I sent had (like me) come out of CS
research. When she came back, she remarked that the whole set up
was so exciting that she would have jumped at a job if they had been
offering them.

The 432 attacked problems that I had been involved with in
architecture research in the 70s.  While it obviously failed, it
seemed like a signpost to me - silicon was going to become more and
more complex, and be able to solve more and more extreme problems.  Of
course, what has actually happened is that the complexity has gone on
increasing, but (following the earthquake of the introduction of RISC
in most of the industry) has been pretty largely devoted simply to
increasing throughput, ignoring so many of the CS-y ideas that the 432
addressed.
--
Robin (dump Brian Kay) Fairbairns                    rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK
[Finally back in work - what a relief!]