Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!rex!ukma!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: RISC systems
Message-ID: <16314@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 31 May 91 18:58:02 GMT
References: <1991May30.051608.22524@crash.cts.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 16

In article <1991May30.051608.22524@crash.cts.com> edwatkeys@pro-sol.cts.com (Ed Watkeys) writes:
>What this all means, in my opinion, is that RISCs and CISCs aren't a
>religious decision; they are simply design decisions.

That's correct, but the rest of your arguments were basically religious ones.

A proper comparison of RISC to CISC would need reasonable implementations
of each, done with equal (high) competence using comparable levels of
technology throughout the whole implementation (including system software).
So far as I am aware, such a "laboratory experiment" has not actually been
conducted, although some software simulations have come close.  It was such
simulations that led RISC proponents to believe they were on a winning
track.

I must say that simple, regular architectures strike me as preferable on
general principles.