Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k
Subject: FLAME!!! Re: EA orthogonality
Message-ID: <557@terak.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 12:30:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: terak.557
Posted: Thu May 16 12:30:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 18-May-85 23:38:31 EDT
References: <419@oakhill.UUCP> <6415@boring.UUCP>
Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 26

**** WARNING ****   The following comments are not as nice as etiquette
recommends.
 
> I think total orthogonality would be *very* useful.
> ...
> A 68K compiler has to think about modifying the branch condition, etc.
> A 32K compiler just generates code in the way it sees the statement.
> 
> Of course, an optimizer might throw everything around again
> to save registers or whatever, but the inital code generation is
> much simpler in the 32K case.

What in heck do you think we users are paying you compiler writers to
DO?

The purpose of a CPU is to solve the *user's* application as quickly as
possible.

The purpose of a CPU is *NOT* to be as easy to write a compiler for as
possible.

Why on earth should the design of a CPU be based on how easy it will
make the jobs of the five people who will write the compilers for it?
-- 
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
               ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp