Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ukma!husc6!yale!mfci!colwell
From: colwell@mfci.UUCP (Robert Colwell)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: RISC/CISC Paper
Message-ID: <636@m3.mfci.UUCP>
Date: 6 Feb 89 13:59:17 GMT
References: <3617@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Sender: colwell@mfci.UUCP
Reply-To: colwell@mfci.UUCP (Robert Colwell)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Multiflow Computer Inc., Branford Ct. 06405
Lines: 30

In article <3617@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> apacible@iris.ucdavis.edu (Johnson A.) writes:
>
>In the article "Computers, Complexity, and Controversy" by
>Robert Colwell et al, of CMU, there is  a picture of a
>ship on every other page.  Would anybody know what that
>ship is suppose to mean? (Since it is an traditional-looking
>ship, i was wondering if it stands for CISC, which is the
>traditional approach to computer system design).  Some
>people are saying that since such ships aren't built anymore,
>CISC machines would end with the same fate.

Gee, if that interpretation had occurred to me then, I might have tried to
get them to change it, since one of the main points we were trying to make
was that the obvious algorithm "1) decide between RISC and CISC, 2) build
one of what you decided on" was definitely wrong.  So I wouldn't be too
happy with the "CISC as big, beautiful, complicated, and completely obsolete"
twist.

But I've always been fascinated by the old sailing ships (who hasn't built
at least one Cutty Sark?  I built one once and then put a motor in it --
see, I'm not bound by tradition!) so I kinda liked it and didn't care why
they used that metaphor.  I also thought that perhaps they were trying to
draw an analogy between instruction sets and sets of instructions (which are
featured prominently on the cover page).  But I can't really think of any
compelling analogies there, either.

Bob Colwell               ..!uunet!mfci!colwell
Multiflow Computer     or colwell@multiflow.com
175 N. Main St.
Branford, CT 06405     203-488-6090