Talk:Reduced instruction set computer

message: It is a common game to claim (computer X is the first risc) based on some simplified definition of "what is risc?". The book making the claim that ACE is RISC is visible on Google Books here (for me at least, YMMV).
The (relatively short) article in question defines risc in a somewhat hand-waving manner, saying "no one at the time would agree with this definition" which is (top of page 199) essentially of "microcode slows execution, and long pipelines are slow and have interlocks". That is a rough description I could find much to agree with.
Then he attempts to link the two with the arguments that in ACE, "ease of programming had knowingly been sacrificed to speed", followed by sections noting it lacked microprogramming, that it could be simplified using interpreters, and then concluding "We can indeed conclude that the ACE is a RISC machine in the sense of having an architecture heavily influenced by the design of the computer".
None of these statements are part of the definition he posts. This is not surprising, as none of the definitional ideas even existed and would take the better part of a decade to emerge. The fact that it didn't have them is akin to claiming that horse carriages are really ICE automobiles because engines didn't exist at the time and the designers were all interested in speed.
If I sound dismissive, I am. Regardless of Turing's original desires, ACE emerged as a pretty bog-standard drum machine. That is by no means a denigration - it's bog standard because everyone used the concepts he helped develop. But the claim that it is a proto-RISC fails by the author's own definition as no machines of the era had the very features he quotes as definitional.
I'm not averse to new claims for first, but I am rather averse to the sort of hand-waving, wooly-headed argument presented in this article and the claim demands much better support in order to deserve being included here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed ACE bits

message: I've been thinking that it would make sense to merge the CISC page into the RISC page. The problem is that the RISC and CISC page have a lot of overlap and mostly cover the same history and information, so they are largely redundant (when they aren't contradictory). As WP:OVERLAP says, "Remember, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability." This is the case with RISC and CISC.
I'm not saying that CISC is unimportant, of course. But since CISC is essentially defined in opposition to RISC, you can't really discuss one without the other. There isn't a lot to say about CISC independent of RISC. I think that combining the pages would improve both of them. The CISC page is weak on citations so I was looking into improving it, but I realized that I would end up duplicating most of the RISC material and combining the pages would make more sense. KenShirriff (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So would the page still be "Reduced instruction set computer", or would it be something that mentions both RISC and CISC? Guy Harris (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. "Reduced Instruction Set Computers and Complex Instruction Set Computers" seems way too wordy but "RISC and CISC" is a bit obscure. I was thinking of adding a section on CISC to the current RISC page. That may make CISC seem less important, though. What do you think? KenShirriff (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That might work.  If complex instruction set computer redirects to the new section, boldfacing the first instance of that phrase in that section might suffice;  if it redirects to the article as a whole, boldfacing the first instance of that phrase in the lead might suffice. Guy Harris (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I recommend based on information, I think the two articles should not be merged and left as they are. Happyevengood (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Votes for or against a merge proposal are usually best put in the section containing the proposal, rather than in sections of their own, with votes for saying Support or Merge or something such as that and votes against saying Oppose or Don't merge or something such as that.  See Kvng's vote for the proposal as an example.  That way, all the discussion and voting is kept together. Guy Harris (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't merge