Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bbn!drilex!dricejb
From: dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: VLIW Architecture - References, oth
Message-ID: <5486@drilex.UUCP>
Date: 17 Oct 89 13:01:26 GMT
References: <771301127@8909291517.AA00260@maxwell.ece.c> <130800001@peg>
Reply-To: dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1)
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA
Lines: 57

In article <130800001@peg> robert@peg.UUCP writes:
>In reply to Craig Jackson's comments,
>
>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.
>Instead of pushing for a continual increase in power, how about looking
>at, for example (and this is *only* an example), better hardware to aid
>program correctness and completeness.

I never meant to imply that hardware devoted to program correctness was
unappreciated.  I personally do most of my work on the Unisys A-Series,
which offers such things as hardware array-bounds checking.  However,
they found that they had to defeat that feature to make a usable C compiler...

I welcome any hardware support of program testing and analysis.  I feel that
many of today's MIPS could be better spent adding a few gate-delays for
such features.

However, that aside, I also like writing programs on machines that have
enough speed to produce a decent user interface without coding
balls-to-the-wall (introducing more complexity).  I like writing programs
on machines which have enough speed to allow me to leave all of my
internal assertion checks in the finished program.  I like writing programs
on machines which are fast enough to have sophisticated programming-
support tools.  (Not that many of those have been written yet.)

>The problem is the same, as far as I can see, as that of most of economics.
>Economics traditionally has growth being the sole reason for existance.  If
>there is not a steady growth in an economy the that economy is dead, as far
>as t.e. is concerned.  Forget that that economy may actually be doing the
>best things for all the people in it etc.

I used to have poster with the slogan "Growth is the only evidence of life".
Not that this is really true, but it does give one thought.

I think you should think of this desire (on the part of politicians,
economists, and hardware-designers) as the desire to each day, leave the
world a little better than the day before.  I think that the view that
growth is undesirable comes from differences of opinion about what is
better for the world.

>This should not be in here, perhaps, but again, let's use what we have
>(and understand it fully) BEFORE moving on.  Look ahead, don't leap.
>
>Robert McArthur
>Pegasus Networks,
>Byron Bay, NSW, 2481
>Australia
>
>robert@peg.pegasus.oz.au


-- 
Craig Jackson
dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com
{bbn,ll-xn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}