Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: code blocks (aka closures)
Message-ID: <11036@alice.UUCP>
Date: 8 Jul 90 13:45:29 GMT
References: <12396@june.cs.washington.edu> <1112@carol.fwi.uva.nl> <15625@vlsisj.VLSI.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 18

In article <15625@vlsisj.VLSI.COM>, davidc@vlsisj.VLSI.COM (David Chapman) writes:

> And I find I design hardware the same way I write software.  A NAND gate is
> in some sense the Turing machine of logic designers.  After all, our software
> runs on hardware.  Why shouldn't they be similar at the most fundamental
> levels?

Because the abstractions we use to build them are fundamentally different.

For example, software is much easier to change than hardware, so people
assume it can be changed.  If the processor you're using is missing your
favorite instruction, you live with it, but if your compiler doesn't handle
your favorite pet syntax, you start bugging the author to change it.

This difference in mid set pervades all aspects of software development.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com