chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (05/25/90)
[[ Followups to comp.arch ]] According to jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau): >peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>Did you know that C-news runs in small model? > >So what if C-News runs in small model. >A vast majority of C compilers won't. Competent C compilers can be written in small model. I once worked on a C compiler that ran on a PDP-11, which as everyone knows, is limited to 64K of data under most (all?) Unix implementations. The old saw that programs will expand to fill the memory available to them is true. It points out that the primary reason why mundane programs use large memory spaces is the tendency of programmers to use brute force to attack problems until the computer they're using runs out of force. It used to be that the brute force line was crossed quite early; not so today. Too bad. I have in the past focussed almost exclusively on kernel bloat as the Evil Memory Waster Of Our Time. However, I now believe that I was mistaken. As much as the Unix kernel hackers have caused their baby to grow in recent years, the utility programs and support code have caused as much, if not more, bloat than the kernel. There is plenty of blame to go around. As Henry Spencer has so often pointed out, thinking small seems to be a lost art[*], which is a pity. The X window system could use a small thinker, possibly for the purpose of discarding X entirely. [*] Were I a cynic, I might wonder if thought of any kind is in short supply among today's programmers. I might also cite Sturgeon's Law: "Ninety percent of everything is crap." However, as I am not a cynic, I shall refrain. -- Chip Salzenberg at ComDev/TCT <chip%tct@ateng.com>, <uunet!ateng!tct!chip>
jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) (05/27/90)
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >[[ Followups to comp.arch ]] > >According to jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau): >>peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>>Did you know that C-news runs in small model? >> >>So what if C-News runs in small model. >>A vast majority of C compilers won't. > >Competent C compilers can be written in small model. I once worked on >a C compiler that ran on a PDP-11, which as everyone knows, is limited >to 64K of data under most (all?) Unix implementations. Which brings forth the argument in favor of progress. How many people actually use PDP-11's anymore? I've seen a few go in and out at garage sales. // JCA /* **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* ** Flames : /dev/null | Small memory model only for ** ARPANET : crash!pnet01!jca@nosc.mil | Unix? Get the (*bleep*) out ** INTERNET: jca@pnet01.cts.com | of here! ** UUCP : {nosc ucsd hplabs!hd-sdd}!crash!pnet01!jca **--------------------------------------------------------------------------* */
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (05/31/90)
In <2832@crash.cts.com> jca@pnet01.cts.com (John C. Archambeau) writes: >Which brings forth the argument in favor of progress. How many people >actually use PDP-11's anymore? I've seen a few go in and out at garage sales. There must be an enormous number of them in the field. DEC recently bowed to their pressure and released two new processors based on the (J11?) chipset they've been using most recently. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company(sm)]