a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) (12/04/90)
Now that Harris' wishes are no longer a major factor in setting a FORTH standard, perhaps certain items--such as floating point stacks--should be reopened for discussion? :)
a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) (12/05/90)
koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) writes: > I believe the arguments I set forth on Harris' behalf still apply to any > stack-based processor design. I do not hold them to be conclusive nor > presume to speak for other designers. It just seemed that on the floating-point issue (and maybe others), the fear of losing Harris' support (by ignoring RTX limitations) had a major effect on decisions. I felt it was, "The standard should be FP stack, but that's not efficient on the RTX 2000 series and we really need Harris' support, so let's compromise." That debate was quite a while ago and I've forgotten all the pros and cons of the decided-upon system. If having FP stack as the standard would cause problems for a lot of other machines, then the present compromise should probably stay. However, if the compromise was made mainly for the RTX, perhaps the issue should be reconsidered. The main players in the FP debate may have marked the issue closed, grudgingly accepting the compromise solution. Those people who feel strongly about the issue--or any other issue they feel was compromised for Harris' sake--may want to consider re-submitting motions. If the present compromise solution is the best one for the standard, then thinking about the issue shouldn't hurt, should it? :-)
wbrown@beva.bev.lbl.gov (Bill Brown) (12/05/90)
In article <4032@mindlink.UUCP> a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes: > >Now that Harris' wishes are no longer a major factor in setting a FORTH >standard, perhaps certain items--such as floating point stacks--should be >reopened for discussion? :) The following is a "Clarification" on from 2 of the December 3 issue of _EE Times_, " 'Rumors of our death have been greatly exaggerated.' according to Fred Hawkes, director of RTX Products at Harris." The blurb goes on to sat that while Harris "has 'reduced direct investment in RTX'" they will continue to market the line, including seeking new design wins. They claim that the product line is still being manufactured, ad the RTX core will remain in their design library. Whatever all that means. From looking at the stuff I got in the recent design contest kit, it looked to be a bit to spendy for a couple of projects I've been messing around with. -bill wlbrown@lbl.gov Disclaimer: These opinions are my own and have nothing to do with the official policy or management of L.B.L, who probably couldn't care less about employees who play with trains.
koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) (12/06/90)
In article <4032@mindlink.UUCP>, a684@mindlink.UUCP (Nick Janow) writes: > Now that Harris' wishes are no longer a major factor in setting a FORTH > standard, perhaps certain items--such as floating point stacks--should be > reopened for discussion? :) I believe the arguments I set forth on Harris' behalf still apply to any stack-based processor design. I do not hold them to be conclusive nor presume to speak for other designers. The issue is *not* whether Harris will be making chips with hardware floating point support. The issue is whether you believe Forth/stack-based processors are in the marketplace for the long haul, and whether the standard will hinder their operation (or force users to ignore the standard in the name of efficiency). Phil Koopman koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu Arpanet 2525A Wexford Run Rd. Wexford, PA 15090 *** this space for rent ***