Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oliveb!amdahl!pacbell!osc!jgk
From: jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Japanese Josephson breakthrough?  Implications?
Keywords: data flow
Message-ID: <1757@osc.COM>
Date: 23 Dec 89 08:27:02 GMT
References: <1989Dec18.025843.4435@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: jgk@osc.osc.com (Joe Keane)
Organization: Object Sciences Corp., Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 37

In article <1989Dec18.025843.4435@Neon.Stanford.EDU> wilson@carcoar.Stanford.EDU (Paul Wilson) writes:
>So I wonder, are we going to switch to bytecoded stack
>machine uniprocessors?  (Or nybblecoded, even?)

Yes, i think processor word sizes are going to get smaller.  No, i don't think
we're going to be dealing with uniprocessors.  Wait till someone makes a JJ
multiprocessor (4 bits of course).  That machine will make your head spin.

>Locality of reference could be the most important research
>topic of the next decade.  The speed difference between
>RAM and these CPUs could be like the difference between
>disks and RAMs.

Locality of reference?  You're still thinking about an overgrown load/store
model.  I don't think that's a good way to think about computing.

>How about centralized cold computer rooms with timeshared
>barrel processors fed by gigabyte RAIDS (redundant
>arrays of inexpensive DRAMS :-).

Sounds good to me...

>Then again, maybe it's cold fusion all over again...
>even so, it's fun to consider the implications.  The
>return of reference counting?  The death of shared
>memory?  Lots of fine-grained optimistic computing
>to avoid waiting for memory?

Yes, yes, and yes.  Seriously.

>Any comments on this alleged Japanese breakthrough?  Is
>it true?  If so, what does it really mean?

As you pointed out, it shows that global memory access is only going to get
more inefficient (relative to CPU).  It means that people are going to have to
get used to the idea of programming large numbers of fairly simple (but fast)
processors.