On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:57 AM, <tlaro...@polynum.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:04:57PM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote: > > On Thu Jul 26 11:18:04 EDT 2012, mirtchov...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > I liked it for the same reason I > > > > liked those Cell processors - I'm weird. > > > > > > a lot of people really hated it because it killed alpha... > > > > credit where due. itanic killed alpha. > > > > or more accurately, the politics behind itanic. > > And perhaps the conception too? about what was needed from the > compiler and the programmer to really use the stuff. It seemed far > too complex to be of sufficiently easy of use and large benefits to > convince a lot of people to try. The doubtful description read in > Hennesy and Patterson' "Computer Architecture" was fair enough. > > Not to speak about compatibility, the one feature that made Intel and > Microsoft prosper... > > The Plan9 vs Unix is not in the very same pattern. If Itanium was > doomed, the Plan9 approach seems to me more and more valid > everyday---interconnections, ubiquity or lack of locality of > resources; terminals vs. CPU vs. fileservers etc. > > And simplicity... > > We'll just keep the fire lit then I suppose until people come to their senses :-)
> -- > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com> > http://www.kergis.com/ > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C > >
