4 ms·
There's no technical reason a Lisp processor couldn't have followed the same development path as workstation/PC processors and kept up, but it didn't have the v
by FullyFunctional 9y ago
There's no technical reason a Lisp processor couldn't have followed the same development path as workstation/PC
processors and kept up, but it didn't have the volume to
sustain the development effort.
- cpr 9y agoWell, being a very CISC-y architecture means they couldn't have kept up with Intel, who spent/d billions on their line.
- erikj 9y agoThe last CPU that was being developed at Symbolics is actually RISC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolics#Sunstone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolics#Sunstone The competitor LMI was also developing their next-generation Lisp machine RISC processor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_Machines#GigaMos_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_Machines#GigaMos_Systems More about the latter: http://fare.tunes.org/tmp/emergent/kmachine.htm http://fare.tunes.org/tmp/emergent/kmachine.htm
- lispm 9y agoWell, Symbolics did not manufacture the new CPU. That would have been too costly. LMI manufactured prototypes of their CPU, but these were older technology - not microprocessors, but VME-board sized CPUs. Xerox mantioned that they were developing a Lisp RISC, but it never surfaced. The SPUR project designed a Lisp RISC Chip: ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/markhill/Papers/jsscc89_vlsi_spur.pdf
- FullyFunctional 9y ago? x86 is obviously very CISCy. Another example is IBM's Z architecture which they keep making faster and faster. The argument is _economical_ not technical. IOW, the architectural benefit for Lisp machine weren't enough to overcome the benefit offered by Moores law. Today, things look different but it would be a much harder sell to push Lisp or any non-C launguage.