🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2907@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> l-aron@obelix.UUCP (Lars Aronsson) writes:
 >I'd like to continue this defence for the file concept and to turn
 >the question the other way: Why not turn all memory into files?
 >
 >The structured UNIX file tree is a very comfortable means for handling
 >big, non-uniform amounts of data. Much more comfortable than a uniform,
 >binary address space from zero to infinity. Even an address space from
 >zero to 2^16 (as on this PDP-11/70 called Obelix) seems too big and
 >unstructured to me. Why not continue the partitioning of data into
 >files and directories down to the variable/record/statement level?
 >Of course, we would then have to consider interpreting languages
 >with more overhead than todays optimized number-crunchers, but,
 >as computers as such become faster and smaller, we would have to find
 >a way to use their extra power anyhow :-).
 >
 >I think this idea has been used to implement some virtual LISP and
 >SmallTalk machines, but these aren't too common.
 >
 >To the comp.arch people:
 >		Who will invent the tree-structured memory chip?

(They have!  Ain't you ever heard of a binary tree?! :-) )

I think the problem is that this drives the size of a pointer through
the roof.  It also makes dereferencing the things a horrible operation.

It might, however, be possible to use plain ol' numbered memory with a
facility for translating names to addresses... Hm...  Could you describe
the avantages you see in this memory model?  I'm not sure exactly what
it's hoping to accomplish.  It sounds sorta interesting, but I can't see
any great advantages it has over large address spaces.
--
	-Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb)

Silly quote:
I'll procrastinate when I get around to it.