Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!apple!bcase
From: bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Was the 360 badly-designed?  (was Re: Compatibility with EBCDIC)
Message-ID: <1589@apple.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Aug-87 18:29:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: apple.1589
Posted: Sun Aug 23 18:29:19 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Aug-87 01:22:00 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case)
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, USA
Lines: 16
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.c:3862 comp.arch:1891

In article <1035@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In article <1580@sol.ARPA> crowl@cs.rochester.edu (Lawrence Crowl) writes:
>>. . .one needs VERY good arguments to claim that the 360
>>architecture was badly-designed.
>
>No stack, small segments, nonstandard character set with holes.

Wait, is the character set part of the architecture!?!?  I didn't think so,
but....  Also, some of the best architectures, in my opinion, don't "have"
any stacks either (what does it mean to "have" a stack?).  The 4K byte 
addressability  problem is real.  The real problems with the architecture
are related to system software interface issues and implementation
ramifications of the instruction set definition, e.g. things like too few
registers, two-address operations, hard-to-pipeline addressing modes, etc.

    bcase