Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!topaz!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!tektronix!tekig5!tekig4!jerryn
From: jerryn@tekig4.UUCP (Jerry Nelson)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: Missionary Position .vs. 69
Message-ID: <802@tekig4.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 16-Jul-86 11:58:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekig4.802
Posted: Wed Jul 16 11:58:10 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jul-86 04:29:24 EDT
References: <2900019@ztivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: jerryn@tekig4.UUCP (Jerry Nelson)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 25

In article <2900019@ztivax.UUCP> david@ztivax.UUCP writes:
>>> jdg@elmgate.UUCP (Jeff Gortatowsky) writes:
>>>It was always
>>>my feelings that, if a CPU manufacturer were to write the language compilers
>>>first, THEN generate a CPU design to run it, we'd all be alot happier.
>
>I do NOT agree.  I first thought it made sense, but no longer.  Here
>is why:
>
>I know of one system which was completely developed like this.  Some
>software people wrote "the perfect language" and the "perfect OS
>concepts" and then some smart HW folks developed the hardware to
>support it.  It has some really neat features, but (of course) it has
>some problems too.  More good things than bad, but there is one BIG BAD
>PROBLEM.  It has got to be the world's most un-portable system.  Since
>David Smyth
>
Hold it!  Are you telling me that there really is such a thing as portability?
Well, assuming that there is, lets introduce the idea of hardware portability.
In other words, if we have the "perfect language"(a premise as likely as 
absolute portability) AND the perfect OS,  won't they become popular enough
to demand hardware upgrades to conform with it.  Imagine the thrill of having
IBM change the PC to make it compatible with Your Program.

OK David, maybe you better lend me that flame-proof suit now......