Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!aglew From: aglew@lasso.crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Is handling off-alignment impor Message-ID: Date: 17 Aug 90 17:52:58 GMT References: <12459@encore.Encore.COM> <3300161@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1990Aug17.155925.1588@mozart.amd.com> Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: University of Illinois, Computer Systems Group Lines: 22 In-Reply-To: davec@nucleus.amd.com's message of 17 Aug 90 15:59:25 GMT Hi Dave! Hi Brian! Mind if I jump in? >>Taking advantage of architectural quirks isn't automatically evil. >>You just have to weigh the costs against the benefits. > >Unless you know what the architects might come up with in the future >in the way of architectural extensions, you can't know all the possible >costs. Within a company, "architects" should have long range plans for the direction of the architecture, and should be able to give software developers for that architecture an idea of what the costs will be. Of course, the plans will change, sometimes breaking previously stated cost goals (but hopefully not breaking previously stated compatibility rules). If you haven't got a rough idea of where you are headed in 5 years' time (I'd like to say 10 years' time, but most US companies don't think that far ahead (except maybe IBM)) you aren't architecting, you're implementing. -- Andy Glew, a-glew@uiuc.edu [get ph nameserver from uxc.cso.uiuc.edu:net/qi]