Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!ccplumb
From: ccplumb@watmath.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.transputer
Subject: Re: Atari Transputers ? (Really: stack machines)
Message-ID: <15192@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Date: Fri, 16-Oct-87 01:14:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.15192
Posted: Fri Oct 16 01:14:35 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Oct-87 13:09:52 EDT
References: <1858@crash.CTS.COM>
Reply-To: ccplumb@watmath.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 18
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.atari.st:5339 comp.sys.misc:876 comp.sys.amiga:8837 comp.sys.transputer:3

In article <1858@crash.CTS.COM> haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM (Wade Bickel) writes:
>        As far as the Transputer goes, I think the Transputer language,
>     OCCAM, would be a natural for the amiga.  It supports multi-tasking
>     at the language level, and looks to be fairly complete.

H'm... The Occam model of message passing involves synchronized passing
and copying of data.  The Amiga's primitives do not copy messages, but
do queue them.  Occam assumes that all memory requirements (including
run-time stack requirements) can be computed at compile time.  The Amiga
allocates memory left, right, and centre.  This is compatible?

Also, the known stack size implies no recursion.  This is a point
against "fairly complete".  You wanted to do *what* to a binary tree?
--
	-Colin Plumb (watmath!ccplumb)

"RISC tends to be any 32-bit processor without an established market
introduced since 1982"