Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!olivea!samsung!think.com!barmar
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Porting OSes
Keywords: Genetics
Message-ID: <1990Nov21.185727.22338@Think.COM>
Date: 21 Nov 90 18:57:27 GMT
References: <41894@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <272cdde6.7069@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> <1990Nov21.042907.20211@actrix.co.nz>
Sender: news@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 20

In article <1990Nov21.042907.20211@actrix.co.nz> Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <272cdde6.7069@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Falconer) writes:
>> 	"Implement a hereditary mechanism capable of supporting the
>> evolution of sentient life while using only four nucleotide bases?
>> Stuff and nonsense!" snorted the eminent Dr. Curmudgeon.   :-)  
>Since when is DNA-based life the most efficient possible way to do it?  It
>works, but that's about all you can say about it.

Also, if the above quote is intended to suggest that nucleotide bases are
analogous to instructions, I think it's a poor metaphor.  Nucleotide bases
are probably more like digits; in this case, most computers are more
"reduced" than genes, because they use only two digits while genes use
four.  The "opcodes" in DNA use three bases, so they're effectively 12 bits
long, which is more than the opcode size of most older microprocessors
(e.g. 8080).
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar