From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id c362e4dc for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 15:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 402D4A1834; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:38:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0D6A1816; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:38:19 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b=ilK+L7iT; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id A172CA1816; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:38:15 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-it0-f51.google.com (mail-it0-f51.google.com [209.85.214.51]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F08A9EDF1 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:38:15 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-it0-f51.google.com with SMTP id k17-v6so21852148ita.0 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 08:38:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oGOX0I7vzszMVQ6jCEUM99o3PDx0/pKfXLpAOQbBGZI=; b=ilK+L7iT9fjwBPrbixJN9l0xcOCEuOUjS+ZLFCPiNbu37Ay74gUntPTA91KqzyD3A3 OcZPxgUosqXLPALwklFc/6scdjpmxn7rizqxR1zDj/TkRHIafywlUpQOSatFg3cXypOf 9lsT8jivqcF2Kt8mxqa3JrHHahzAmIZoIIdZw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oGOX0I7vzszMVQ6jCEUM99o3PDx0/pKfXLpAOQbBGZI=; b=HQ3rbdr1AtzPLXC7BoytVSga2NZNDehiGSLBBJFAMjTja2xVlfVJXMolI6gqkm663N AcAxcouhndeupjeoVA30oz+PLdbUb7RHQt9RnVG19bT6Z2xjH8STD3HugT7uOSoBhAB5 ck0b9Hv82IeHjpM+/m/SXNpKN7BH6LOjEtumDWOAJU5AbJnY+mM49MnwlObvnQ+TF2I/ 3PkP5pEGZD+ntpx5gUaazrhaVHYlq9aZBB8QOfxcdomcvX8vQ5NDwEzfNPzEpk+FBd2y lASKajn+BBAVtzwlbvJAza/1ro0ytWuN173zIrVWjnOQ92fz5BvstsyQIM1kNaPhRDlW 9wKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1SDJJOVLc1MI2+DOd8fpBtxFAGJGO4XNsPo9OhMfNYZstS5HRP aRlF5wRyhZZrfBGKDMHmnuXBjFV8ahIH7gDFFhvLRw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfC0BnWnBKRl2wgSF5ajaZKZJ5FFUoqdsl4CoXPhvrRXmuM49ZI9q913dmYmpJIfFmuewlq6dSKvdSl0eC4j1M= X-Received: by 2002:a24:4587:: with SMTP id c7-v6mr1741243itd.136.1530200294300; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 08:38:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a4f:ca8a:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jun 2018 08:37:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180628144017.GB21688@mcvoy.com> References: <81277CC3-3C4A-49B8-8720-CFAD22BB28F8@bitblocks.com> <20180628141538.GB663@thunk.org> <20180628144017.GB21688@mcvoy.com> From: Clem Cole Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:37:43 -0400 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fa338f056fb584ea" Subject: Re: [TUHS] PDP-11 legacy, C, and modern architectures X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000fa338f056fb584ea Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Larry McVoy wrote: > Yep. Lots of cpus are nice when doing a parallel make but there is > always some task that just uses one cpu. And then you want the fastest > one you can get. Lots of wimpy cpus is just, um, wimpy. > =E2=80=8BLarry Stewart would be better to reply as SiCortec's CTO - but tha= t was the basic logic behind their system -- lots of cheap MIPS chips. Truth is they made a pretty neat system and it scaled pretty well. My observation is that they, like most of the attempts I have been a part, *in the end architecture does not matter nearly as much as economics*. In my career I have build 4 or 5 specially architecture systems. You can basically live through one or two generations using some technology argument and 'win'. But in the end, people buy computers to do a job and the really don't give a s*t about how the job gets done, as long as it get done cheaply.=E2=80=8B Whoever wins the economic war has the 'winning' architecture. Look x66/Intel*64 would never win awards as a 'Computer Science Architecture' or in SW side; Fortran *vs*. Algol *etc*...; Windows beat UNIX Workstations for the same reasons... as well know. Hey, I used to race sailboats ... there is a term called a 'sea lawyer' - where you are screaming you have been fouled but you drowning as your boating is sinking. I keep thinking about it here. You can scream all you want about goodness or badness of architecture or language, but in the end, users really don't care. They buy computers to do a job. You really can not forget that is the purpose. As Larry says: Lots of wimpy cpus is just wimpy. Hey, Intel, nVidia and AMD's job is sell expensive hot rocks. They are going to do what they can to make those rocks useful for people. They want to help people get there jobs done -- period. That is what they do. Amtel and RPi folks take the 'jelly bean' approach - which is one of selling enough it make it worth it for the chip manufacture and if the simple machine can do the customer job, very cool. In those cases simple is good (hey the PDP-11 is pretty complex compared to say the 6502). So, I think the author of the paper trashing as too high level C misses the point, and arguing about architecture is silly. In the end it is about what it costs to get the job done. People will use what it is the most economically for them. Clem --000000000000fa338f056fb584ea Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com>= ; wrote:
Yep.=C2=A0 Lots of cpus a= re nice when doing a parallel make but there is
always some task that just uses one cpu.=C2=A0 And then you want the fastes= t
one you can get.=C2=A0 Lots of wimpy cpus is just, um, wimpy.

=E2=80=8BLarry Stewart would be better to reply as SiC= ortec's CTO - but that was the basic logic behind their system -- lots = of cheap MIPS chips. Truth is they made a pretty neat system and it scaled = pretty well.=C2=A0 =C2=A0My observation is that they, like most of the atte= mpts I have been a part, in the end architecture does not matter nearly = as much as economics.

In my career I have build 4 = or 5 specially architecture systems.=C2=A0 You can basically live through o= ne or two generations using some technology argument and 'win'.=C2= =A0 =C2=A0But in the end, people buy computers to do a job and the really d= on't give a s*t about how the job gets done, as long as it get done che= aply.=E2=80=8B=C2=A0 =C2=A0Whoever wins the economic war has the 'winni= ng' architecture.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Look x66/Intel*64 would never win awards = as a 'Computer Science Architecture'=C2=A0 or in SW side; Fortran <= i>vs. Algol etc...; Windows beat UNIX Workstations for the same = reasons... as well know.

Hey, I used to race sailboats= ...=C2=A0 there is a term called a 'sea lawyer' - where you are sc= reaming you have been fouled but you drowning as your boating is sinking.= =C2=A0 =C2=A0I keep thinking about it here.=C2=A0 =C2=A0You can scream all = you want about goodness or badness of architecture or language, but in the = end, users really don't care.=C2=A0 =C2=A0They buy computers to do a jo= b.=C2=A0 =C2=A0You really can not forget that is the purpose.

<= /div>
As Larry says:=C2=A0Lots of wimpy cp= us is just wimpy.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Hey, Intel, nVidia and AMD's job is sell= expensive hot rocks.=C2=A0 =C2=A0They are going to do what they can to mak= e those rocks useful for people.=C2=A0 They want to help people get there j= obs done -- period. That is what they do.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Amtel and RPi folks t= ake the 'jelly bean' approach - which is one of selling enough it m= ake it worth it for the chip manufacture and if the simple machine can do t= he customer job, very cool.=C2=A0 In those cases simple is good (hey the PD= P-11 is pretty complex compared to say the 6502).

So,= I think the author of the paper trashing as too high level C misses the po= int, and arguing about architecture is silly.=C2=A0 In the end it is about = what it costs to get the job done.=C2=A0 =C2=A0People will use what it is t= he most economically for them.

Clem

--000000000000fa338f056fb584ea--