Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies
From: gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: fad computing
Message-ID: <76700096@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 23 Dec 89 01:38:30 GMT
References: <8840002@hpfcso.HP.COM>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:hpfcso.HP.COM:8840002:p.cs.uiuc.edu:76700096:000:1194
Nf-From: p.cs.uiuc.edu!gillies    Dec 21 23:38:00 1989


> Well, there are fast compilers for Unix. It is not a matter of CPU
> architecture, or even system architecture, or even OS architecture.  

Someone said "Macs have terrible [coding] throughput compared to
workstations".  Now you're on the defensive?  I didn't expect my
arguments to work *that* well.

PC's have some advantages.  You can dedicate 100% of the CPU for
compiles.  You can run code benchmarks that are absolutely 100%
reproduceable.  I don't believe this is possible under preemptive
UNIX.  You must run a much longer benchmark on UNIX to wipe out the
timing noise due to context switches.

Most PC development systems integrate compile, bind, load, & launch
without touching the disk -- not to page, not to write a binary, not
touching the disk AT ALL.  I believe that this is physically
impossible under [some types of] UNIX.  This shortens the debug loop.
The quality of PC debuggers is catching up to workstations, and may
soon surpass workstation debuggers.  I suspect there are more PC
programmers today than workstation programmers, so the development
tools are improving.

In summary, sometimes PC's can be superior to workstations.  Sometimes
they are not.  That is all.