Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Compilers taking advantage of architectural enhancements
Message-ID: <27089@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: 21 Oct 90 20:01:31 GMT
References: <1990Oct9> <3300194@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <11922@ganymede.inmos.co.uk> <2661@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 20

In article <2661@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
hyperbolizes (is that a word? :-) ):
>... to deliberately restruct
(`restrict', I think, not `restructure', not that it matters too much
to my particular reply)
>an architecture to what a language provides is at best an insult to
>all thinking people.

Hardly.  If someone builds a machine designed to run COBOL programs fast,
I may not want to *use* it, but it is in no way an *insult*.  If company X
thinks there is a market for such machines, and can find investors, why
should I be insulted?

Now, if Herman Rubin thinks a machine with instructions Y and Z can be
built and would be such a great leap forward, I suggest he found his
own company.  There are plenty of investors.  Instead of griping about
the ones investing in MIPS and SPARC, why not find your own?
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 405 2750)
Domain:	chris@cs.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris