Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!yale!mfci!colwell
From: colwell@mfci.UUCP (Robert Colwell)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: More mips
Message-ID: <1086@m3.mfci.UUCP>
Date: 16 Oct 89 19:58:16 GMT
References: <771301127@8909291517.AA00260@maxwell.ece.c> <130800001@peg> <6535@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Sender: colwell@mfci.UUCP
Reply-To: colwell@mfci.UUCP (Robert Colwell)
Organization: Multiflow Computer Inc., Branford Ct. 06405
Lines: 26

In article <6535@pt.cs.cmu.edu> lindsay@MATHOM.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>In article <130800001@peg> robert@peg.UUCP writes:
>>Why should we welcome a continual increase in MIPS (VUPS or whatever)?
>>We have enough trouble designing programs which work without error at the
>>moment.  These will just get to the error state faster with more power.
...
>Well. Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of his life finding
>other people's bugs: I disagree completely.
...
>Further, real experience says that I'd rather debug on a fast machine
>than a slow one, all else being equal.

Agreed, as far as that goes.  We've hashed this out before on this forum,
and believe me when I say I really don't want to do it again, but...there
have been computer systems designed with their major aim being minimization
of the life-cycle cost of the system, software and hardware included.  (I'm
thinking of the object-oriented systems here.)  You can argue that no such
system has yet measurably achieved such an objective, and you may well be
right.  But that's not the same as arguing that improving the performance
of a machine is the ONLY way to improve its life-cycle cost.  Do you really
believe it is?

Bob Colwell               ..!uunet!mfci!colwell
Multiflow Computer     or colwell@multiflow.com
31 Business Park Dr.
Branford, CT 06405     203-488-6090