Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:11446 comp.arch:5618
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Self-modifying code
Message-ID: <60782@sun.uucp>
Date: 21 Jul 88 06:10:22 GMT
References: <5262@june.cs.washington.edu> <260@thor.wright.EDU> <759@cernvax.UUCP> <472@m3.mfci.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 14

> Second, it seems like only yesterday when we (the royal we) CPU
> architects were so concerned with trying to narrow the semantic gap
> between what a programmer was trying to express and what the
> machine/language was coercing her into.  Languages like Ada and
> machine architectures like capability machines were intended to
> address this perceived need.

A naive (and not rhetorical) question: what evidence is there to indicate the
degree to which "narrowing the semantic gap" with capability machines and the
like would improve the productivity of programmers or the reliability of
programs, and to which other techniques (e.g., making a very fast conventional
machine, possibly but not necessarily using RISC technology, and using that
speed to improve the programming environment with better software) achieve the
same goal?