Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!brl-adm!adm!preece%mycroft@gswd-vms.arpa
From: preece%mycroft@gswd-vms.arpa
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Complaint about complex architec
Message-ID: <6679@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 3-Apr-87 11:57:42 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.6679
Posted: Fri Apr  3 11:57:42 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Apr-87 05:49:51 EST
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 26


  aglew%mycroft@gswd-vms:
> >[scott preece @ Gould]:
> >There's no great advantage to simplifying your compiler's job if all
> >that means is that it produces equivalently bad performance on all the
> >machines in your product line.
> 
> Bullshit! There's such a thing as dependable performance. With a
> variety of complicated machines in the same family, you really have no
> idea of how good the compiler is. If the machines are simple, you can
> come much closer to an absolute measure of compiler quality.
> 
----------
Relatively few customers are in the business of comparative compiler
evaluation.  Many customers are in the business of executing code as
quickly as possible.  If simplifying your architecture means that some
important function inherently takes longer, you lose.  Regardless of
the efficiency or effectiveness of your compiler.  Making life easier
for compiler writers is not the ultimate goal of the computer industry,
even though it may have some benefits.

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
uucp:	ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
arpa:	preece@gswd-vms