From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
From: Neville Black <nab@pond.com>
Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ?
Date: 1996/12/31
Message-ID: <32C9AE27.5EC8@pond.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 207025828
references: <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> <32C43AC8.24E2@sn.no>
 <32C557F6.532C@rase.com> <5aa0eo$thd@krusty.irvine.com>
 <5aadbr$ad8@masters0.InterNex.Net>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: FishNet
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (WinNT; I)
Date: 1996-12-31T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


This is all mythology. The fundamental aspect of a von Neumann machine
is to
store program and data in the same memory. This was thought to be hot
stuff for
"self modifying programs", and also very clever way of fully utilizing
memory (precious beyond
imagining). The  "opposite" of a von Neumann machine is the "Harvard
Architecture" in which program
and data memory are distinct. Example: the IBM 610 which used magnetic
drum for data storage and
paper tape for code (yes, the tape was automatically replicated for each
iteration..).

Given the large drop in memory costs, it is surprising that Harvard
Archirectures have not
seen a revival.....



clovis@wartech.com wrote:
> 
> In <5aa0eo$thd@krusty.irvine.com>, adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
> >In article <32C557F6.532C@rase.com> tansel@rase.com writes:
> 
> You're quite right.  Tansel is acting like quite a pretender on this one, and he
> obviously doesn't know what either a Von Neumann machine is, or what a Turing
> machine is.  A Von Neumann "machine" is really a recommended architecture,
> and really, there aren't many of them.  They feature regular instruction sets,
> with zero duplication of function, and all operations being orthogonal.  The basic
> feature of the Von Neumann machine is all classes of basic arithmetic operation,
> and all classes of comparisions within the two basic numeric types.  The "ideal"
> Von Neumann machine supports natural numbers, integers, reals (actually, length
> limited rational numbers), in which any operation -- add, subtract, multiply, divide
> and compare -- are entirely separate.
> 
> That is ALL we mean by a Von Neumann machine.  If you delete ANY aspect of a
> Von Neumann machine, you can't do basic computation.  One is either missing
> discrete whole numbers, or the ability to compute rational numbers and their
> real number simulation, or the ability to tell if one number is the same size as,
> or larger, than another number.
  ....<snip>.....