Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!oracle!hqpyr1!csimmons
From: csimmons@hqpyr1.oracle.UUCP (Charles Simmons)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC v. CISC
Message-ID: <473@oracle.UUCP>
Date: 3 Nov 88 10:02:22 GMT
References: <156@gloom.UUCP> <890@cps3xx.UUCP> <10194@cup.portal.com> <754@wsccs.UUCP>
Sender: news@oracle.uucp
Reply-To: csimmons@oracle.UUCP (Charles Simmons)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont CA
Lines: 21

In article <754@wsccs.UUCP> dharvey@wsccs.UUCP (David Harvey) writes:
>In article <10194@cup.portal.com>, bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) writes:
>> The almighty Compiler can save us from our sins! 
>
>If my memory serves me correctly, it is much easier to get something
>up and running on a Motorola 68000 than on an Intel 8086 (very nasty,
>those beasty little segments).  And miracle of miracles, we learn that
>over 70% of computing costs are software.  It seems like hardware types
>should be designing their end of the deal to reduce it at the other end.
>
>dharvey@wsccs

Hmmm...  Bad example.  The 8086 is an extremely unorthogonal
architechture.  The 68000 isn't very orthogonal (there are two
different kinds of registers).  RISC chips tend to be extremely
orthogonal.  Thus, this example would suggest that RISC designers
are reducing the software complexity, and that it would be easier
to get something up and running on a RISC than on a 68000 (much
less an Intel chip).

-- Chuck