eric@snark.UUCP (Eric S. Raymond) (07/10/88)
In article <6888@ico.isc.com>, rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes: >Most folks familiar with the RISC-CISC debate have their biases, and in a >moment of passion they may get a little carried away in supporting their >viewpoint. [...] think it added some heat and absolutely no >light...we need thought more than we need more emotion. Thank you for an excellent article. I agree, and would like to offer a viewpoint on the debate that at the very least implies a *different* set of religious wars ;-). I am a software person, an ex-mathematician of somewhat theoretical bent; I like talking and thinking about computer architectures, and I don't get lost when the hard-core chippies start mumbling about pipelining and register files and the glories of unmicrocoded machines etc. etc; but the *architectural* RISC-vs-CISC and RISC-vs-RISC debates (which used to appear fairly simple) have long since moved to levels of theological abstruseness at which, frankly, mine eyes tend to glaze over. Yes, I like my machines to be fast. But benchmark wars leave me utterly cold. I mean, we're generally talking about differences that amount to small blips on a market-driven trend curve so steep that I *expect* my available bang- per-buck to effectively double every nine months or so. Fight your fights, guys, because that's part of the dialectic; but they aren't *my* problem. I'll win any way the chips fall, because free markets select for winning solutions. Does this mean I'm neutral in the RISC/CISC wars? Not at all! The point of this posting is to observe that there are technical, political and economic agendas that can be involved in the dispute that have *nothing* to do with benchmark wars and everything to do with the more abstract interests of software people. I'm pro-RISC, rather strongly so (there; the cat's out of the bag now!). Here are a few reasons that, as I emphasized before, have *nothing* to do with the theology of how many mips one can induce to dance on a pinhead-sized piece of silicon.. 1. I dislike assembler. I like C. Nobody tries to make you write assembler code for RISC machines. All RISC machines have spiffy fast-as-blazes C compilers. 2. I dislike proprietary operating systems, vendor-controlled standards, and we-want-to-lock-you-in software technology in general. I like UNIX. What operating system does every RISC vendor bring up practically before the etching fluid is dry on this quarter's new chip? You guessed it... 3. I dislike companies that have a we-are-the-high-priests-of-hardware -so-you'll-like-what-we-give-you attitude. I like commodity markets in which iron-and-silicon hawkers know that they exist to provide fast toys for software types like me to play with (just as software types know they depend on their ability to gratify the whims of *users*). Now, none of these is necessarily more than a casual reason to tilt in the RISC direction -- unless you think that the RISC revolution is *causal* in promoting C, UNIX and vendor humility. And I do. Consider: one major impact of RISC has been to shorten product cycles. This has forced vendors to forgo the luxury of writing lock-me-in software technology -- how long has it been now, since one could afford to delay introduction to write a VMS or an OS/370? RISC has also reversed the trend towards product-line architectural uniformity in the industry (cf SPARC, the Motorola 88000, and the rumored DEC successor to the VAX 8650). This means that the cheap-and-sleazy way out -- porting last decade's proprietary OS to the new silicon -- is just as big a mess, and robs the it's-optimized-for-the-machine line of arguments of plausibility. These trends have created a vicious (for nasty vendors) circle in which UNIX support is the only way to get to market fast enough -- and the increasing dominance of UNIX creates a commodity market, which in turn generates more pressure to get the newest-fastest-spiffiest hardware out the door, which takes us right back where we got on. RISC is causal in all this is that, by championing high-level language compilation in standard environments as a *dominant* development mode, it creates an *expectation* that hardware can be treated as a commodity; pay so many bucks, buy so many Dhrystones, thank you very much. Forget the benchmark wars and the microcode-vs-random-logic debates and the is-it-RISC-or-is-it-CISC lucubrations. *THIS* is why comp.lang.c and comp.unix.wizards people do and should care about RISC vs. CISC. Because RISC means high-level languages and software standards -- specifically C and UNIX -- have gone from being dreams of the future to being the economic necessity of the present. And that is good news for all of us. -- Eric S. Raymond (the mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews) UUCP: ..!{uunet,att,rutgers!vu-vlsi}!snark!eric Smail: eric@snark.UUCP Post: 22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718