Re: Ada and JVM? Why not AdaVM?

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <3A79FE73.3D7F12A0@home.com>,
  "Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@home.com> wrote:
> Nick Roberts wrote:

> > 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 ;-)

The i432 was a very odd design, which was certainly not done
with Ada in mind (not clear *what* was in mind, this chip was
doomed to fail, since it was impossible to implement
efficiently). The attempt to make it into an Ada chip was
one of the last gasp attempts to bail this chip out of
catastrophe -- it failed, Ada projects were not about to
buy an unsuitable inefficient chip just because it had an
Ada label on it.

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

I don't think that claim has any historical basis, the i432
failed on its own merits.

> The lack of interest in the iAPX-432 was caused by the 432's
> severe lack of performance.

Indeed

> Unfortunately, it's failure was also perceived by many to
> also be the failure of the ideas behind the architecture.

Entirely fair, the design was misconceived

> The 432 might not have been a stellar performer even with the
> best possible implementation of the
> architecture

Indeed.

> but a lot of truly terrible decisions were made in its actual
> implementation that effectively crippled it.

Nothing could have rescued it in my opinion. The design had the
appearence of being done by high level language folks with no
view of what could be implemented efficiently. There was really
nothing specifically Ada about the design.




Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/