> On Apr 11, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2017 02:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> When the 432 project (originally 8800) started, there weren't many
>> people predicting that C (and its derivatives) would take over the world.
>
> That's the danger of a too-aggressive CISC, isn't it? I suppose that
> it's safe to say that if you look under the hood of any modern CPU,
> there's a RISC machine in there somewhere.
Back then it would have seemed a reasonable assumption that high level,
strongly typed, languages would continue to flourish. If you assume Algol or
Pascal or Ada, a machine like the 432 (or like the Burroughs 5500 and its
descendants) makes perfect sense.
I don't think this is exactly a question of RISC vs. CISC, but rather a
question of how you believe addressing is done. For example, the EL-X8 is a
one address machine with a regular instruction layout, which makes it somewhat
RISC like in structure. But it has addressing modes clearly designed for
efficient handling of block structured recursive languages like Algol.
paul
