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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!noao!terak!doug From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.arch Subject: Re: FLAME!!! Re: EA orthogonality Message-ID: <572@terak.UUCP> Date: Wed, 22-May-85 13:32:07 EDT Article-I.D.: terak.572 Posted: Wed May 22 13:32:07 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 08:20:42 EDT References: <419@oakhill.UUCP> <6415@boring.UUCP> <557@terak.UUCP> <6417@boring.UUCP> Organization: Terak Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ, USA Lines: 61 Xref: linus net.micro.68k:743 net.arch:1052 me>The purpose of a CPU is *NOT* to be as easy to write a compiler for as me>possible. > Not agreed. If a machine is simple, the compiler is simpler, and thus it > is available sooner, doesn't have as much bugs, etc. Did I miss something here? Since when is it any concern of mine, as a user, whether the compiler is simple??? And I have seen no evidence that compilers for "simple" machines are available any sooner, or are any more reliable, than compilers for warpo machines. me>Why on earth should the design of a CPU be based on how easy it will me>make the jobs of the five people who will write the compilers for it? One response: > Because *EVERYONE* will use the product of those five people. But that doesn't address the question as to why the comfort and convenience of those five people is of any concern to "*EVERYONE*". Another response: > If you have tried to hire good > compiler people lately, you know that compiler-writer time is neither > cheap nor in infinite supply. Ah, here we finally get to the nitty-gritty. What we're saying is that we want to have CPUs that are easy to write compilers for so that we can hire less-capable (aka *cheaper*) programmers to write the compilers!!! Given how few micro-processor instruction sets there are, and how few languages of interest, you don't *need* an "infinite supply" of compiler programmers. In fact, about a dozen could do the job for the entire microcomputer world. There are certainly a dozen top-notch compiler programmers available for this task. And given the importance of having good compilers, they're worth whatever they get paid. But CPUs and compilers are put out by IC manufacturers, and they understand chips better than software. So they tend to put their money into design work on the chip, and hire cheap programming labor to produce less-than-thrilling compilers. Since the manufacturers' compilers are often poor, third-party operations spring up all over the place to try to cash in. Typically underfinanced, these operations *also* hire cheap programming labor and produce less-than-thrilling compilers. And the vacuum remains, so even more third-party start-ups appear. For heaven's sake, how many C compilers do we have to develop for the 68000 before we get one that's good??? Wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier if Motorola or Microsoft or *someone* had put up the bucks necessary to hire real compiler writers in the first place? I think it makes more sense to take compiler-writing seriously, rather than try to kludge the CPU so that every basement hacker can write what he calls a "compiler". -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp