aglew@mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM (05/12/89)
>the 68030 has been around nearly as long as the 68030. >Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Well, I should hope so! Otherwise - existential processors! (Thanks - this typo made my day)
aglew@mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM (05/22/89)
>Claim: The best architectures are those that appear to have been designed >by one person. And have had careful review by a number of other people looking for the details that were "obvious" to the principal architect - but which would not have been obvious to a circuit designer.
baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum) (05/24/89)
[] >>Claim: The best architectures are those that appear to have been designed >>by one person. Addendum: and so have some of the worst. -- baum@apple.com (408)974-3385 {decwrl,hplabs}!amdahl!apple!baum
bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case) (05/24/89)
>>Claim: The best architectures are those that appear to have been designed >>by one person. > >And have had careful review by a number of other people looking for the >details that were "obvious" to the principal architect - but which >would not have been obvious to a circuit designer. I didn't mean that the best architectures were designed (defined is a better word) by one person or even by a team with a "principle architect." I meant that, whatever the means, an architecture is best if it looks like it was defined by one (very smart? very experienced? very rigorous?) person. That is, it will have the internal consistency that makes other people say "Oh, I see, this is consistent with that, and that is consistent with the other thing, and I see that there is indeed a theme here." This probably implies a "peer review" as you say.
aglew@mcdurb.Urbana.Gould.COM (06/01/89)
>>>Claim: The best architectures are those that appear to have been designed >>>by one person. > >Addendum: and so have some of the worst. For a second there I thought that you said "Wirth" (oh, I'm really living dangerously today...)