Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!polyslo!csun!csusac!utgard!chris
From: chris@utgard.UUCP (Chris Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why unix doesn't catch on
Message-ID: <369@utgard.UUCP>
Date: 1 May 89 21:35:06 GMT
References: <7632@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <256@jwt.UUCP> <7697@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <268@tree.UUCP> <13595@ncoast.ORG>
Reply-To: chris@utgard.UUCP (Chris Anderson)
Organization: QMA Inc., Rancho Cordova, CA
Lines: 31

In article <13595@ncoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
>
>Another point -- optimization technology took a big leap forward when RISC
>processors became popular.  It *had* to.  I'm not sure how much of that has
>leaked back into the world of CISC compilers, but when it does compilers
>will get even better.
>
>Let's not bring in specious arguments.  The tools exist to make C very
>nearly as fast as assembler, if developers are willing to put some of their
>profits into their compilers.

Brandon makes a very good point here.  Optimizing compilers *are* the
future of computers.  And developers are putting their profits into
compiler technology.  In the world of RISC, the chips are all within
and eyeblink of each other.  What makes a difference is the compiler
technology that the companies put into their products. 

Sequent is a company that is making a big push on compiler technology.
They compete head-to-head with RISC computers, using a '386 cpu.  When
their compiler technology starts to trickle-down, you should see a 
big jump in how fast programs run.

Hardware is always going to be developed faster than software can
keep up.  Optimizing compilers are one way of keeping up.

Chris
-- 
| Chris Anderson, 						       |
| QMA, Inc.		        email : {csusac,sactoh0}!utgard!chris  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Of *course* I speak for my employer, would he have it any other way? |