oo hardware (was: Why so few garage processors?)
Alan Kay
Alan.Kay at squeakland.org
Fri Mar 21 02:56:05 UTC 2003
To me the real issue is whether one can do one's operations "faster
than memory" -- if so, then it doesn't matter except for cost what
kind of configuration one is using. If checking tags and other ops
can't be done within a memory cycle, then special HW/Firmware of some
kind should be used.
Cheers,
Alan
At 4:58 PM -0800 3/20/03, Dan Ingalls wrote:
>Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel at merlintec.com> wrote...
>
>>Now suppose you can get a competitive solution working on an FPGA. If
>>somebody comes up with a better idea, just patch your VHDL and
>>recompile! And you get to ride Moore's law like all the big guys since
>>faster and cheaper FPGAs will be coming out every year.
>
>I'm sure Jecel knows this but, to those who have just learned what
>FPGAs are and who are excited about them, the double-whammy is that,
>once you have one that works, there is a whole industry built around
>the ability to take just about any FPGA pattern, and "compile" it
>into *real* gate arrays. These tend to be much more compact (so you
>can make even bigger ones), to run 5-20 times faster, and to use
>less power as well.
>
>The other thing I have to say on this thread is a bit against the
>flow. Namely, today's screaming C chips are not all that bad for
>OOP. Consider what the best JIT VMs do, and ask yourself how much
>better you think you can do. You really have to get specific about
>what you think is needed and how much time you think it would save.
>Given how well a good JIT can do, it may make more sense to put
>those architectural brain cells to work on the problem of
>distributing OOP in a manner that many processors can work together.
>(Or finishing Jitter 5 ;-).
>
> - Dan
--
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|