Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!ames!ads.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!usc!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!awdprime!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif
From: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: It looks like he's at it again!
Message-ID: <2767@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jul 90 19:06:04 GMT
References: <1990Jul12.012730.4248@Stardent.COM> <64044@sgi.sgi.com>
Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP
Reply-To: tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain)
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin, TX
Lines: 50

I really should stay out of this but ...

In article <64044@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes:
>I still hope for a day when programming professionals will evaluate
>programs by how well they perform their intended function, not by how the
>souce code is indented and commented, or how portably they were
>written.  (This is, by the way, how people who purchase software
>usually evaluate it).

Maybe you aren't, but I'm pretty impressed with how many Mario Brothers
get sold.  That software runs on everything.  I have no idea what it
was written in but I'd bet that its very modular, structured, etc.

>Is it correct to sacrifice modularity to improve the refresh rate of
>a graphics display?  I think it is, but there are too many programs
>out there where the religion of modularity superceeded the necessity
>of fast performance.

Yeah, I can just imagine switching out half of a chip so you can get
color from your display.  Modular software does give that option.

>My favorite example of the anti-intellectual current in CS is a paper by
>a very famous computer scientist in which he states that the teaching of
>certain computer languages should be treated as a criminal act.  Learning
>and teaching should not be denigrated, but should instead be encouraged.

Do they still teach EE's how to design with tubes?  Or teach mathematicians
to count on their fingers?  Both are unproductive and perhaps even retard
their future possibilities (as does programming in BASIC).

>I think a lot of this is a result of the rapid growth of the field.

I think this is a result of being bitten by costs from software that
isn't portable, extendable, modular.  It tends to be necessary when
the customer wants more (machines), more (features), more (compatibility).
(BTW, when was the last upgrade to ANY TV IN THE WORLD??  Actually, since
the TV makers are learning the values of modularity, extensibility, etc.
I'm quite sure that (very near) future televisions might well have the
option of upgrades.  Come to think of it, I have a stereo system that I
recently upgraded to include a CD player, thank God for modularity.)

I hope I never have to do anything with your source code.

>>>Ten million instructions per second, and it still takes minutes to boot.

Ironically, this is where alot of the assembly code is too.


Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT represent IBM	  tif@doorstop, sc30661@ausvm6
512/838-7008	 | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif