Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Survey of architectures was (Re: Proposed architecture characterization)
Message-ID: <21883@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 21 Apr 88 13:45:39 GMT
References: <2048@gumby.mips.COM> <10504@steinmetz.ge.com> <7657@ames.arpa>
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 29
In-reply-to: eugene@pioneer.arpa's message of 21 Apr 88 03:46:40 GMT



Although the ultimate machine/os/language/etc which can be used as a
universal standard is an attractive idea it remains a dream, quite
possibly a false one, it applies the wrong assumptions.

Computers exist within a techno-economic framework. Why doesn't
someone build the ultimate frob panel that will work as well for an
oscilloscope as a microwave oven or synchrotron? Is this a reasonable
question?

So far the purpose of computers is to simulate other realities. As the
technological understanding and economics of the desireability of
having simulations of these realities changes computer architectures
change. New opportunities arise and they are largely economic. For
example, address spaces imply real wires and fighting combinatorial
connectivity problems which cost real money, a group of people have
trouble agreeing on the maximally needed address space. One person
says that enough bits to address every electron in the universe should
be enough, another points out the computational convenience of a
segmented, sparse address space. Another notes that you will need at
least one more bit to store the spin of each electron, another bunch
to store its location or energy level. Another says that is not
worthwhile...

Put another way, no one has successfully described a set of operations
both sufficient and minimal with which to describe reality. It's like
asking why we come up with new words in human languages, it's because
new ideas need to be expressed.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University