Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hp-pcd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!cornell!hal
From: hal@cornell.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf)
Message-ID: <1719@hp-pcd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Sep-83 03:35:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.1719
Posted: Sun Sep  4 03:35:21 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Sep-83 20:39:42 EDT
Sender: netnews@hp-pcd.UUCP
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Corvallis OR
Lines: 25

#R:rlgvax:0:cornell:-1:37777777600:1213
cornell!hal    Jul  3 09:47:00 1983

One of the articles in this conversation said something like "I don't
understand why they [the 8008-8080 designers] didn't do a better job.
After all, much was known about computer architecture at the time."

Well, yes, but...

How many good chip designers are also good computer architects?  Perhaps
there are some now, but back when the original microprocessors were built,
probably very few people were good at both.  The original microprocessors
remind me a lot of early computer designs before very much was known about
computer architecture.  The hardware folks put together something that
could execute instructions, then left it to the software folks to see
if they could figure out how to use it effectively and come up with good
code generators for compilers in spite of the instruction set.  There are
VERY few examples of good computer design.  The only encouraging thing is
that there is more awareness of how hard it is to do it right, and that a
really good design must take into account lots more than circuits.

Hal Perkins                         uucp:  {decvax|vax135|...}!cornell!hal
Cornell Computer Science            arpa:  hal@cornell
                                  bitnet:  hal@crnlcs