Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!csustan!dave
From: dave@csustan.UUCP (david j wells)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Atari Transputers ? & A British ST/Amiga Rival ?
Message-ID: <975@csustan.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Oct-87 14:25:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: csustan.975
Posted: Thu Oct  8 14:25:01 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 11-Oct-87 09:17:48 EDT
References: <8709181728.AA13664@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1623@gryphon.CTS.COM> <1717@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> <21@lzaz.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: dave@csustan.UUCP (david j wells)
Organization: CSU, Stanislaus; Turlock, California
Lines: 16
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.atari.st:5560 comp.sys.misc:913 comp.sys.amiga:9204

In article <21@lzaz.ATT.COM> bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (BRUCE SZABLAK) writes:
>One major point about RISC that I haven't seen mentioned, is that a simpler
>instruction set implies that a LOT less silicon is devoted to micro-code.

Also the simpler silicon is much easier to develop.  Less time.  Less money.
Fewer bugs.  (kind of like the diffference between coding a linked list v.
coding a B-tree  ...)
The complexity is moved into software (generally the compiler) and is
therfore relatively trivial to modify (compared to fixing silicon).
Can you say 386?  :-)

David
-- 

-----
David J Wells				lll-crg!csustan!dave
					dave@csustan.uucp