Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!ames!umd5!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The VAX Always Uses Fewer Instructions
Keywords: VAX MIPS
Message-ID: <12179@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jun 88 00:32:43 GMT
References: <6921@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <28200161@urbsdc> <10595@sol.ARPA> <914@entropy.ms.washington.edu>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 29

>In article <11981@mimsy.UUCP> I wrote:
>>All of this just goes to show that the VAX provides too many ways to
>>do things!

In article <914@entropy.ms.washington.edu> mcglk@scott.stat.washington.edu
(Ken McGlothlen) writes:
>Oh, please.
>
>Guess we're gonna have to not only bash that ultra-complex VAX architecture,
>but while we're at it, may as well bash C, too.  I mean, we've got so many
>ways of adding five to an integer variable!

I think you missed the implicit :-) ---I was half kidding.  (But only
about half.)

>I still haven't seen any good arguments as to why RISC is so much better or
>faster.

Who cares about the arguments?  The fact is that if you have somewhere
between $10,000 and $1,000,000, and want to buy the fastest machine you
can get for that, right now that machine is probably `RISC-based'.

You can argue all you like as to why the Vax instruction set is better,
or why the 88000 instruction set is better, but the fastest Vax CPU from
DEC is slower than the fastest 88000 CPU from Motorola.  If it were the
other way around, DEC would be in fine shape.  (Maybe they just need
Motorola to design their next chip :-) .)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris