Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!hub.toronto.edu!thomson
From: thomson@hub.toronto.edu (Brian Thomson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Criteria ... [really: are N designs better than 1?]
Message-ID: <8905121714.AA06601@beaches.hub.toronto.edu>
Date: 12 May 89 17:14:54 GMT
References: <2368@ogccse.ogc.edu> <1464@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> <141@dg.dg.com> <156@dg.dg.com> <658@pitstop.West.Sun.COM> <19088@winchester.mips.COM> <25294@ames.arc.nasa.gov>
Organization: University of Toronto
Lines: 21

In article <25294@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes:
>There has been enough of this kind of traffic over the last few years to
>probably justify a separate newsgroup for *performance* : comp.perf?
	....
> Since these things are a little
>more "commercial" than many would like to see comp.arch, as well as more
>"personal" (facts vs. opinions, etc.), it would help keep an eye on more
>architectural issues if they were in a separate newsgroup.
>

I would agree, except I think these issues are too closely related to
be profitably separated in the way suggested here.  Performance and
cost of manufacture are two primary, mutually antagonistic, driving
forces in architectural innovation today.  Divorcing them from
the architecture discussion would make comp.arch a wasteland of
conjecture, unsupportable assertion, surmised value and supposed benefit.

Hmm, maybe not such a big change after all ...
-- 
		    Brian Thomson,	    CSRI Univ. of Toronto
		    utcsri!uthub!thomson, thomson@hub.toronto.edu