Re: Ada and JVM? Why not AdaVM?

["Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@home.com>]

Nick Roberts wrote:

> "David Starner" <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote in message
> news:94vdt9$a2g1@news.cis.okstate.edu...
> > ...
> > * The Ada chip is dead, and you'd lose a lot of flexibility designing
> >   around it. ("Ada chip" = "the CPU of the computers Rational designed
> >   for running Ada". My knowledge of this is limited, so feel free to
> >   correct me.)
>
> I believe the original 'Ada chip' (as such) was the Intel 432, many moons
> ago (a 16-bit single backplane multiprocessor architecture). Sadly, it was
> cancelled due to lack of intere$t*.
>
> (Anyway, you don't need an Ada-specific CPU, you only need an Ada-specific
> OS ;-)

> *Actually, due to Intel deciding to concentrate all its powers on the then
> new and astonishing iAPX 386.

The lack of interest in the iAPX-432 was caused by the 432's severe lack of
performance. Unfortunately, it's failure was also perceived by many to also
be the failure of the ideas behind the architecture. The 432 might not have
been a stellar performer even with the best possible implementation of the
architecture, but a lot of truly terrible decisions were made in its actual
implementation that effectively crippled it.

The move to the i386 was a result of the 432's failure and the enormous
profits generated by the 8086/88 line.

It seems to me that the Itanic may end up following the 432. If the IA-64
architecture doesn't go down the tubes, I think it will be due to HP's
implementation. If the architecture is judged to be a failure, it would be
ironic if Intel had to follow AMD's lead in the 64-bit x86 architecture.

Larry