Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!bcase
From: bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 80486 vs. 68040 code size [real
Message-ID: <18715@cup.portal.com>
Date: 23 May 89 22:08:19 GMT
References: <18549@cup.portal.com> <28200320@mcdurb>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 15

>>Claim:  The best architectures are those that appear to have been designed
>>by one person.
>
>And have had careful review by a number of other people looking for the
>details that were "obvious" to the principal architect - but which
>would not have been obvious to a circuit designer.

I didn't mean that the best architectures were designed (defined is a
better word) by one person or even by a team with a "principle architect."
I meant that, whatever the means, an architecture is best if it looks
like it was defined by one (very smart?  very experienced?  very rigorous?)
person.  That is, it will have the internal consistency that makes other
people say "Oh, I see, this is consistent with that, and that is consistent
with the other thing, and I see that there is indeed a theme here."  This
probably implies a "peer review" as you say.