Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<861q6ctwr8.fsf@linuxsc.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: architecture, The Design of Design Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 03:37:31 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 47 Message-ID: <861q6ctwr8.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <v03uh5$gbd5$1@dont-email.me> <c4ee3c91e9a05dee1098a3786edb61df@www.novabbs.org> <v0rhqv$1itj$3@gal.iecc.com> <86r0emt69e.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v0tuqt$613$2@gal.iecc.com> <86a5l2tnyk.fsf@linuxsc.com> <2024May7.105011@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 12:37:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="50ffccc4ba84cdaa6c09197c205426c9"; logging-data="4113838"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JUx8W9v1cnP4KJyBV5XyRr/7ABokaNa4=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:+Qc4DpM6M08JJNJ0653LITizFRo= sha1:Ver60LEoERx0abrP4vghndzDpgs= Bytes: 3578 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes: >> >>> Well, yes, but another 360 innovation was the whole idea of computer >>> architecture, as well as the term. It was the first time that the >>> programmer's view of the computer was described independently of any >>> implementation. >> >> I don't buy it. An architecture is just a description of system >> behavior, and surely there were descriptions of system behavior >> before System/360. Even in the 1950s companies must have changed >> implementations of a given model while still conforming to its >> earlier description. > > Sure, the 7094 was a compatible successor of the 704, I think a more accurate description is to say that the IBM 709 was an upgraded version of the IBM 704, the IBM 7090 was a compatible replacement for the 709, and the IBM 7094 was an upgraded version of the 7090. In both cases the upgrades included changes. The 7094, for example, still had a three-bit field to select an index register, but there were 7 index registers, not 3, only one of which could be selected rather than OR-ing together all the index registers whose bits were on. To be fair I should add that the 7094 could be run in a compatible mode where only 3 index registers were used, with OR-ing like in the earlier models, but there were other changes (or maybe only additions) as well. The 7094 may have been upward compatible relative to the 7090, but it wasn't plug compatible, and TTBOMU wasn't even upward compatible relative to the 704. > but the idea of > implementation independence turns out to be much more profound than > most people (probably including its inventors at the time) realized. The point I was trying to make upthread (and whose significance seems to have been missed by some people) is that the important lessons had already been learned and understood -- by some key people at IBM, although certainly not all -- before the System/360 effort started. It isn't an accident that IBM decided to make an upward- and downward- compatible family of computer models. That the System/360 effort ended up producing a system description that is independent of any particular model, and the benefits that accrue as a result, is simply a consequence of that earlier and deeper understanding.