>>>>> "KF" == Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KF> Uri Guttman wrote: >> and please don't bring in hardware comparisons again. a VM design >> cannot be compared in any way to a hardware design. KF> I didn't say a single thing about hardware. My entire post was KF> simply about an alternative VM architecture. It's not a KF> theory. You can go get the code right now. you mentioned why you thought compilers were so smart and i said that is because risc hardware required them to get smarter. that is where the hardware reference was brought in. S2S architectures are like the CISC ones and those compilers were much simpler to the risc ones today. the same would be true for a compiler to an S2S VM vs. parrot's register design (which is more like a CISC than a RISC). most CISC had registers and the compilers used them. the VAX and 360 family among others had many S2S instructions and their compilers took advantage of them to simplify the code generators. in fact the hardware designers made more complex S2S instructions just to make code generation easier. so my point is the the speed of the VM is a separate issue from the ease of code generation. an S2S VM would be easier to code generate for but may be slower to run. the speed difference is still an open point as dan has said. but since his goal is execution speed, that will determine the best parrot design, not ease of code generation. uri -- Uri Guttman --------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- http://www.sysarch.com SYStems ARCHitecture and Stem Development ------ http://www.stemsystems.com Search or Offer Perl Jobs -------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
