Re: Constructed Computer Architectures (Concomps?)

It's hardly on the same level, but during 1993/94 I fooled around with
eradicating the reliance on a CPU with its consequent reduction of everything
else to the level of peripherals.  I was at the time much taken with the Unix
concept of everything as a file, and the SCSI concept of everything as
an "autonomous" node, meaning that it had its own "intelligence".

I never planned on using it as the basis for a conworld or fiction: I was
hoping to use it to sweep the CPU-centric architecture off the floor.

sic transit gloria mundi ...

Wesley Parish

On Monday 09 February 2009 09:44, Paul Bennett wrote:
> Where does the design of imaginary computer architectures (and programming
> languages) stand in the ranks of con-somethinging?
>
> It's probably a highly esoteric question, but that's what I'm doing right
> now, instead of conlanging: noodling around with a few programming
> language designs that each started off as attempts to create notation
> systems for specific problems, and dummying up a few completely
> impractical computers to do thought experiments on. At the hazy
> borderlines of the two live my thoughs of assembler opcodes and register
> sets (etc) for best implementing a given language on one of those
> computers.
>
> Anyone else ever dug into that sort of stuff?
>
>
>
>
> Paul
--
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Gaul is quartered into three halves.  Things which are
impossible are equal to each other.  Guerrilla
warfare means up to their monkey tricks.
Extracts from "Schoolboy Howlers" - the collective wisdom
of the foolish.
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.

Reply