[Info-vax] OT: news from the trenches (re: Solaris)

[johnson.eric at gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 11:40:06 AM UTC-4, li... at openmailbox.org wrote:

> > What's your alternative to x86-64 here?   How much will the "special 
> > kick booty chip" cost to produce and integrate?
> 
> There's a lot more wrong with Intel than can ever be fixed. I agree a good
> processor would be nice from a programmer's POV and from a healthy market
> POV.

The idea that x86 is "inherently broken" and "wrong" is kind of silly. The reality is -
only a handful of people really have to deal with the instruction set. Yes it has become
complicated, but 30+ years of success against a forever changing landscape will do that.

It's the price of success.

I don't see how you can get around that. Even a freshly crafted instruction set
(this time done right! *pounds fist on the table*) will have the same kind of warts
after 30 years of kicking ass and taking names. That's even assuming your better
instruction set lasts that long. 

I'm sure even the designers of Itanium thought they had it right too.

I know, I know, this time it would be different.

EJ