Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site oliveb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!hplabs!oliveb!rap
From: rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease)
Newsgroups: net.micro.68k,net.arch
Subject: Re: Re: FLAME!!! Re: EA orthogonality
Message-ID: <424@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 17:03:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.424
Posted: Tue Jun  4 17:03:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 05:24:37 EDT
References: <419@oakhill.UUCP> <6415@boring.UUCP> <557@terak.UUCP> <6417@boring.UUCP> <572@terak.UUCP> <6431@boring.UUCP>
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.micro.68k:876 net.arch:1328

> 
> You may do what you want, but I'll stick to hardware that was designed
> by software people. 
> -- 
> 	Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP
> 	The shell is my oyster.

The thing that I keep thinking about is  that  every  paper,  article,
text, or whatever I have seen on the subject says that the best way to
design a system is to first decide what the application  will  be  and
then  design  the  hardware to support the design goals.  Seems to me,
then,  that  an  orthogonal  archetecture  would  support  high  level
languages  much  better  than one that is not orthogonal, or do I just
see things more clearly that others :-).
-- 
					Robert A. Pease
    {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap