From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <107b1bu$252qo$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Thomas Koenig   wrote:   
   >Dan Cross  schrieb:   
   >   
   >[Snipping the previous long discussion]   
   >   
   >> My contention is that while it was _feasible_ to build a   
   >> RISC-style machine for what became the VAX,   
   >   
   >There, we agree.   
   >   
   >> that by itself is   
   >> only a part of the puzzle.  One must also take into account   
   >> market and business contexts; perhaps such a machine would have   
   >> been faster,   
   >   
   >With a certainty, if they followed RISC principles.   
      
   Sure.  I wasn't disputing that, just saying that I don't think   
   it mattered that much.   
      
   > [snip]   
   >> which   
   >> wouldn't arrive with the 801 for several years after the VAX had   
   >> shipped commercially.   
   >   
   >That is clear.  It was the premise of this discussion that the   
   >knowledge had been made available (via time travel or some other   
   >strange means) to a company, which would then have used the   
   >knowledge.   
      
   Well, then we're definitely into the unknowable. :-)   
      
   >> Furthermore, Digital would have   
   >> understood that many customers would have expected to be able to   
   >> program their new machine in macro assembler.   
   >   
   >Programming a RISC in assembler is not so hard, at least in my   
   >experience.  Plus, people overestimated use of assembler even in   
   >the mid-1975s, and underestimated the use of compilers.   
   >[...]   
      
   They certainly did!  I'm not saying that they're right; I'm   
   saying that business needs must have, at least in part,   
   influenced the ISA design.  That is, while mistaken, it was part   
   of the business decision process regardless.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)