Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!mcvax!unido!ztivax!david
From: david@ztivax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Addressing modes
Message-ID: <2900003@ztivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 14:56:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ztivax.2900003
Posted: Thu Mar  6 14:56:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Mar-86 08:37:53 EST
References: <946@garfield.UUCP>
Sender: notes@unido.UUCP
Lines: 34
Nf-ID: #R:garfield:-94600:ztivax:2900003:000:1467
Nf-From: ztivax!david    Mar  6 19:56:00 1986

/* Written  3:11 pm  Feb 27, 1986 by jer@peora in ztivax:net.arch */
>> ... Unfortunately, NO ONE has yet succeeded
>> in developing an instruction set which can 'directly (and optimally)'
>> interpret the semantics of the source code.

>Now, this is exactly the point at which the RISC/CISC debate generates into
>the sort of assertions more commonly found in advertising than in research.
>The fact that "NO ONE has yet succeeded" in no way demonstrates or proves
>that it can't be done; this is a simple fallacy!  

Sorry, but that is the way it is.  No I am not flaming.

Software is ever bug free unless it is small enough and concise to be
proven.  For example, the inner loop of a parser can be proven, as t
only has about 40 lines of code and 3-5 branch points.  The grammar
can be proven, because the finite number of states is small.

Typical sofware has bugs because its so damn complex.  No one will
succeed in making a CISC which CAN interpret a "high level language"
without SIGNIFICANT BUGS because it CAN NOT BE DONE without a
SIGNIFICANT breakthrough in mathematics and computer science.

just ask Intel.  Whatever happened to the 432 (Ada in Silicon)?
Doesn't work, for the same reason all Ada compilers have bugs.  Too
big, too complex.  We (mankind, computer scientists, etc) do not have
the technology.  It is not on the horizon.

(Well, maybe I have an idea... soon I may publish...)

David Smyth
Free and proud of it

seismo!unido!ztivax!david