Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!grand!day
From: day@grand.UUCP (Dave Yost)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: software ICs (was Re: C++ vs Objective-C)
Message-ID: <390@grand.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Oct-87 16:17:43 EST
Article-I.D.: grand.390
Posted: Thu Oct 22 16:17:43 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 09:45:03 EST
References: <3405@ece-csc.UUCP> <638@its63b.ed.ac.uk> <1811@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <1549@pdn.UUCP> <1661@ppi.UUCP> <3179@ames.arpa>
Reply-To: day@grand.UUCP (Dave Yost)
Organization: Grand Software, Inc., Los Angels, CA 213-650-1089
Lines: 32
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.misc:770 comp.lang.smalltalk:370 comp.lang.c++:532

In article <3179@ames.arpa> fouts@orville.nas.nasa.gov.UUCP (Marty Fouts) writes:
>The second problem I have is the analogy which isn't stated here, but
>is frequently drawn between "Software-IC" and hardware IC.
>...

Liked your comments.  My $0.02:

Standard cliche:
    Hardware advances are way ahead of software advances.

Questionable interpretation:
    Hardware logic design technology has advanced faster
    than software design technology.

Another interpretation:
    Computer performance has improved more from
    improvements in semiconductor fabrication technology
    and the cost savings acceleration that results from
    mass production than from improvements in software
    design.  By the way, it is hard to say if hardware
    logic design technology has advanced as fast as
    software design.

Of course, where would (hardware) IC design be without
design tools made of software?

In conclusion, predictions of great improvements in
software that will finally catch up with the improvements
in hardware sound hyperbolic to me.  Let's just improve
software technology and leave it at that.

 --dave yost