Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.java
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!vrotney
From: vrotney@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney)
Subject: Re: Garbage collection cost (was Re: Parenthesized syntax challenge)
In-Reply-To: hbaker@netcom.com's message of Wed, 25 Oct 1995 18:16:22 GMT
Message-ID: <vrotneyDH17B3.29q@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <44aa9a$j5h@miso.cs.uq.edu.au> <LUDEMANN.95Oct6140930@expernet26.expernet.com> <DGApp8.J41@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> <MAD.95Oct13123618@tanzanite.math.keio.ac.jp> <45ksdk$7gr@jive.cs.utexas.edu> <DGJp8o.7nF@Cadence.COM> <MAD.95Oct18040436@tanzanite.math.keio.ac.jp> <hbaker-1710952127200001@10.0.2.15> <46jb8v$sm8@news.parc.xerox.com> <hbaker-2510951016220001@10.0.2.15>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 01:11:27 GMT
Lines: 27
Sender: vrotney@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.dylan:5603 comp.lang.lisp:19706 comp.lang.java:2723

In article <hbaker-2510951016220001@10.0.2.15> hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) writes:
>
>   In article <46jb8v$sm8@news.parc.xerox.com>, boehm@parc.xerox.com (Hans
>   Boehm) wrote:
>
>   > 2. As a result, I claim the average PC is grossly underconfigured with
>   > memory.  Most PCs would gain much more from a memory upgrade than a
>   > processor upgrade, if they're running anything beyond DOS.  RISC
>                                                                 ^^^^
>   > workstations tend to be configured a bit more reasonably, but users
>   > expect something in return for the extra money they paid for
>   > memory.
>
>   The RISC 'revolution' has increased memory requirements for code by about
>   a factor of two.

Good point.  I did some tests (years ago) by compiling the same program on a
68040 and then a Sparc and you are correct about the factor of two.  This
was for small programs.  What I noticed was that as the programs got larger
the factor got larger (than two).  This was just something that I noticed
and did not prove any results.  Also, the CISC compiler may have been better
than the RISC compiler for larger programs.  But it was enough to make me
start wondering about all the hype over RISC architectures at the time.

-- 

William P. Vrotney - vrotney@netcom.com
