Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!pacbell!att!alberta!obed!steve
From: steve@obed.uucp (stephen Samuel)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Common Compilers for benchmarks (was: Re: benchmarking)
Summary: COBOL users aren't that worried about speed
Keywords: gcc silicon compilers RTL MIPS
Message-ID: <1791@pembina.UUCP>
Date: 3 Nov 88 08:11:53 GMT
References: <7352@wright.mips.COM> <26627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <609@quintus.UUCP>
Sender: news@alberta.UUCP
Lines: 25

In article <609@quintus.UUCP>, ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
> In article <26627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> shs@ji.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Schoettler) writes:
> >In article <7352@wright.mips.COM> earl@mips.COM (Earl Killian) writes:
> >>machines using gcc as the compiler.
> 
> It looks to me as though many of the newer machines are designed with
> C and Fortran *only* in mind.  That's just a comment from someone who
> reads the manuals:  could anyone who really knows say to what extent
> ADA and COBOL were studied _when the arhictectures were being designed_?

I don't know about ADA, but my feeling is that the people who really
worry about COBOL are a bit more worried about moving their code over
in one piece (I mean, who wants to wrestle with 4.5MB worth of 
   ADD A TO B GIVING C.  <<- Don't forget the period!!!
(guh!)
Most of these people tend to stay on their nice big mainframes with
hords of I/O bandwidth and a compiler they know and love.

Most of the people who are interested in the newer machines are either
scientific types who tend to avoid COBOL or business people who believe
that MIPS is all that it takes to make a good machine (snicker, snicker).

-- 
Stephen samuel !alberta!{obed,edm}!steve
Look on the bright side... It might have worked!