Pthhbbbt.

[Michael David WINIKOFF]

> The goal is what lies at the end of it all. Well, I think no one is ever
> sure of what the others mean, all the more if we communicate only by e-mail,
> which sure is slowly read. The best would have been physical meetings;
> perhaps we can have an Y-Talk one day. For those (like you, Dennis) who
> don't have talk capabilities, I can lend you my account, or an unused account
> on my computer whom password I know.
>  So, when can we (=part or totality of the group) have a talking party
> together. I can be free at any hour (provided I am forewarned). So please
> mail me your Talk-ative time (please give also GMT).

I don't tend to have a consistent talking time.
If you want to organise something give a yell.

We will have problems with different time zones though ... :-)

> I was rather thinking about designing an OO chip, or putting in parallel
> cheap FORTH units (as they are just very simple, one could have 4,8,16 of
> them on a single chip, and/or give memory and IO on the same chip as the cpu;
> this would be far more powerful and/or cheaper than any other equivalent
> cpu based system; but the whole system is to be written)
> 
>    ,
> Fare

Actually that's something I don't understand -- why are they no shared memory 
multiple CPU workstations?
Sure, programming them may be a hassle if you do it in C.
If you use something like Parlog, Concurrent Prolog or a parallel implementation
of a functional language then you can get good speed up for say 4 processors.


> 
> 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Winikoff
winikoff@cs.mu.oz.au
Computer science honours. University of Melbourne, Australia.