Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: moi <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Why VAX Was the Ultimate CISC and Not RISC
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:27:26 +0000
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <m3c2neFcu2rU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <vpufbv$4qc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <2025Mar1.232526@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vq2dfr$2skk$1@gal.iecc.com>
 <2025Mar2.234011@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <5pkg9l-kipt.ln1@msc27.me.uk>
 <2025Mar3.174417@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vq4qav$1dksd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq5dm2$1h3mg$5@dont-email.me> <2025Mar4.110420@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <vq829a$232tl$6@dont-email.me> <2025Mar5.083636@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
 <vqdljd$29f8f$2@paganini.bofh.team> <vqdrh9$3cdrc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqek6h$3fro6$1@dont-email.me>
 <fe70b48cd6fef0aaf89278163d8b6322@www.novabbs.org>
 <vqfmr4$3npgk$1@dont-email.me> <vqg04o$3p80h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqgbao$3rbkh$1@dont-email.me>
 <9371fe9be75cdd606c876f539e1d2d78@www.novabbs.org>
 <vqnps4$1j63b$1@dont-email.me>
 <0da86de26bac1912b190793512255aa4@www.novabbs.org>
 <vqo8b1$1ln7o$1@dont-email.me>
 <5e696219dedf30d0095dfd7671a4c87f@www.novabbs.org>
 <vqpuja$22eta$1@dont-email.me> <m3bfusF9ocaU1@mid.individual.net>
 <vqq72r$22et9$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net JP7eSyReyWKa5vXfatVqCgowCSDCtJx8KBqLpNdUFWAgXtX68c
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qGXfe/K/gEI2Am0wlPKI3KWPBzU= sha256:aV3lbVWS0k3Nt1r60bit+1JLfa/7bMXAylFKGtbmU4g=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vqq72r$22et9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2847

On 11/03/2025 20:39, Stephen Fuld wrote:
> On 3/11/2025 12:07 PM, moi wrote:
>> On 11/03/2025 18:15, Stephen Fuld wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if the different preferences is at least partially due to 
>>> whether the person has a hardware or a software background?  The idea 
>>> is that when hardware guys see the instruction, they think in terms 
>>> of register ports (read versus write), what is required of the memory 
>>> system (somewhat different for loads versus stores), etc.  However 
>>> software guys think of a language construct, e.g. X = Y, which is 
>>> logically a move.  I don't know if this is right, but I think it is 
>>> interesting.
>>
>> No, it is logically a copy.
> 
> While that is true, I don't think anyone is talking about a "copy" op 
> code.  :-)  I had thought about mentioning in the software part of the 
> argument that COBOL actually has a "move" verb to accomplish that, i.e. 
> "Move A to B." even though you are technically right that it is a copy.

Being technically right is the best kind of right. 8-)

-- 
Bill F.