Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!rutgers!bpa!cbmvax!snark!eric
From: eric@snark.uu.net (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: GaAs considered a dead end
Message-ID: <1Tcfjq#9jMTbv=eric@snark.uu.net>
Date: 29 Nov 89 16:47:58 GMT
References: <24317@cup.portal.com> <480@dmk3b1.UUCP> <1989Nov28.104128.8045@hellgate.utah.edu>
Lines: 22
Back-References: <3279@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>

In <1989Nov28.104128.8045@hellgate.utah.edu> Nick Michell wrote:
> On a related subject, DARPA has funded a number of GaAs RISC chips,
> which have been reported in various conferences and acedemic publications.
> This research has, at least so far, resulted in no commercial spin-offs.

Ah, yes. Commodity GaAs -- the electronics version of "jam yesterday, jam
tomorrow, but never jam today".

Don't hold your breath. Persons Who Know have told me that GaAs is a real
revolving bitch to design for (as in "worse than bubble memory"). Also that
the low density of GaAs is unlikely to improve much; there's some physical
effect connected to its high electron mobility that makes packing gates very
tightly a Bad Idea. Finally, the reagents used for production are intensely
toxic and much more persistent in the environment than the garden-variety
hydrofluoric acid used as silicon etchant.

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)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com