Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

academia.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 117 posts

Re: When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

#81

Post by onethought »

wjnc wrote: post #70
onethought wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Universities aren’t corporate training grounds. So the ridiculous fees that correlate to average wages of the profession you graduate into is just a weird coincidence?

Rent seeking causes that correlation (so there is actually a causal relationship): Some professions require certain university degrees. They pay high wages. Universities found out they can extract a rent on future earnings of potential entrants. So you could actually argue that by requiring the degree the firms not only create the rent extraction, but also de facto agree on the curriculum.

So universities (in some quite common scenarios) ARE corporate training grounds?

Re: When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

#82

Post by onethought »

yuliyp wrote: post #76
onethought wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Universities aren’t corporate training grounds. So the ridiculous fees that correlate to average wages of the profession you graduate into is just a weird coincidence?

At least for undergraduate studies, most universities have the same tuition regardless of major (outside of lab fees for courses which need lab materials). The tuition of a particular university is more related to its prestige level than the particular majors its students choose.

I see, and its prestige comes from what? Its contribution to academia? Or its contribution to industry?

Is there a prestigious university that corporates do not value degrees from highly?

Re: When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

#83

Post by bionsystem »

I learned with the 68000 which not only was still a bit relevant and an "industry" chip, it was also simple enough to understand in a few hours assembly courses.

The CPU arch course was with a different teacher and on a made up CPU though. It wasn't even a full CPU we were just learning modules and what they do. Kind of a more advanced (and less palatable) version of the book "but how do it know" (which btw is a great read for the neophyte like me).

Re: When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

#84

Post by RecycledEle »

bitwize wrote: post #15
RecycledEle wrote: post #8

Because x86/x64 is horribly CISC. I challenge you to list the instructions a current x64 processor runs in a table. You will get so lost in the extensions it does and does not support that you will give up. Because Apple's M chips have not been on the market long enough for us to adjust, nor are there cheap versions we can pick up for our hardware labs. Because phones are not good for teaching computer architecture.…

> If I were teaching computer architecture, I would use an ARM chip in a Raspberry Pi. If I were, my students' first CPU would be something like a 6502 -- quite possibly God's perfect CPU architecture. Then move on to something more complicated, RISCy, and 32-bit.

I can not disagree.

Re: When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

#85

Post by OJFord »

glitchc wrote: post #10
don-code wrote: post #3

Much as I also have never understood universities teaching to "teaching" architectures (DLX), or "teaching" languages (Eiffel - luckily removed from our curriculum before I started), at the same time I did not land a job based on having learned "practical" architectures 68k or MIPS either.

Hey I learned Eiffel. It's a nice language. I wish we had pre-conditions and post-conditions in modern procedural language.

Assertions in e.g. python? Missing the 'contract view', but you could generate docs that pull in any assertions on input args or return value to do something like that.

Re: When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

#86

Post by cdf »

bobim wrote: post #53
inkyoto wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

x86 should be taught as a follow-up course in the following semester as an example of how not to design a CPU architecture, specifically from the long term evolution perspective. It would have been fine if x86 ceased to exist after 80486 or 80586, yet it has persevered and has continued to cause trouble with an incessant stream of extensions supplanting the previous generations, or expanding or «enhancing» them: MMX,…

To my understanding Intel tried to move from x86 with Itanium. That's the consumers who wanted it to linger around.

As someone who was working on Itanium systems at the time, I can confidently say that "consumers" never had a chance to choose Itanium. It was only available on server hardware and Windows ... will there as a version for it but it was slow ... all the compatibility and performance downsides of M1 Macs, and more power hungry too... practically no upside.

It is still a common belief Intel created the Itanium to fool the proprietary unix vendors into thinking they can stop developing their own RISC CPU, but as soon as it happened, Intel gave up on Itanium as well. Solaris lasted a little bit longer only because Sun gave up early on Itanium.

Re: When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

#87

Post by wjnc »

onethought wrote: post #81
wjnc wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent seeking causes that correlation (so there is actually a causal relationship): Some professions require certain university degrees. They pay high wages. Universities found out they can extract a rent on future earnings of potential entrants. So you could actually argue that by requiring the degree the firms not only create the rent extraction, but also de facto agree on the curriculum.

So universities (in some quite common scenarios) ARE corporate training grounds?

That's pretty universal (worldwide) I guess? White collar corporate staff that is predominantly unversity educated. That still doesn't mean the curriculum is or should be corporation directed or focused. I know little about this, but India and South-Korea come to mind where there might be more direct links. UK as perhaps a counterpoint where you can find corporate role with an Oxbridge arts degree, or France.

Re: When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

#89

Post by derlvative »

outop wrote: post #74
TOMDM wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine teaching a legal class a fictional legal system. Philosophically there's likely great value but I doubt people wanting to practice law would favour courses with that as a focus. I agree that University courses shouldn't purely be vocational training; there's value to personal growth and pure academia that doesn't have a 1-1 overlap with the corporate world. That said I certainly appreciate that my time at Uni…

Many law courses spend time on Roman law, and on archaic English law.

Roman law and old English law were actually used in real legal systems, and they are studied because they are the basis for the legal system we use today

Re: When teaching computer architecture, why are universities using obscure CPUs?

#90

Post by defrost »

outop wrote: post #74
TOMDM wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine teaching a legal class a fictional legal system. Philosophically there's likely great value but I doubt people wanting to practice law would favour courses with that as a focus. I agree that University courses shouldn't purely be vocational training; there's value to personal growth and pure academia that doesn't have a 1-1 overlap with the corporate world. That said I certainly appreciate that my time at Uni…

Many law courses spend time on Roman law, and on archaic English law.

In the US (and other countries) Roman and English Law are the "common law" and or "natural rights" that are referred to but generally not stipulated.

"New" governments had a habit of writing up founding documents that focus on the "new stuff" and waving in "all the old stuff" that doesn' conflict with the "new stuff" via a few throwaway phrasings.

Post reply on HN