Herfried:
The hardware white papers were written to explain the function(s) of
circuits. The software white papers were written to explain how the software
took advantage of the hardware functions.
Architecture was needed as the number of circuits increased. Often there
were pressures from the headshed to complete a project. There was not a lot
of (qualified) supervision either, so in many cases old circuits were not
redesigned or reallocated, they were simply branched out of use. Interesting
how the software follows the same pattern to this day. Makes me wonder how
many of the millions of circuits in the CPU's of today are actually
functional. NASA made some real engineering progress when the space program
required smaller components and versatile redundant circuitry.
Initially, the white papers were written primarily for and by system and
component developers. When the higher level languages appeared, they simply
followed the same documentation pattern of explaining how the language took
advantage of new hardware technology.
So I would expect the same today of a white paper. What hardware issues has
Basic, Visual Basic, Visual Basic.Net, or the Dot Net Platform addressed and
how, and what hardware issues has it not addressed. After that..., the
papers move into the language reference, which most people are familiar
with. If Dot Net is a new paradigm in addressing hardware technologies, then
I would expect a white paper explaining it from scratch.
I haven't been keeping up with the hardware design, but from a cursory look
engineers went in a non-traditional direction. That is, as people may have
pointed out, there are no white papers. That probably occurs because
Microsoft, and Intel and AMD, want to retain (conceal from the public) the
knowledge of their design engineers for their own benefit, which isn't
illegal. That's strange in a way, in that most of the 'headshed' couldn't
build a CPU if their life depended on it, so basically they don't understand
how their own software operates, and yet they will conceal it from the
public, thereby preventing further optimization that would benefit everyone.
Guess if I had my way I would start over from scratch and design nothing but
public domain hardware and software, and remove laws governing patented
circuit designs, hardware, and copyrighted software. I think it would be
better to sell the hardware and software at a reasonable price to more
people, and give people (the general public) the opportunity to improve it
to everyone's benefit. Would that drive them out of business? No, they just
would not make so much money. The wealth would be more widespread.
Thanks for the URL's Herfried. I own VB.Net 2003.
"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hi************ ***@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:2p******** ****@uni-berlin.de...
* "Dennis D." <te**@dennisys. com> scripsit: ADA, BASIC, and C all began with white papers, although finding them now
would be challenging.
So, what would you expect to be the content of such a white paper?
Product Information for Visual Basic .NET 2003
<URL:http://msdn.microsoft. com/vbasic/productinfo/>
Product Overview for Visual Basic .NET 2003
<URL:http://msdn.microsoft. com/vbasic/productinfo/overview/>
--
M S Herfried K. Wagner
M V P <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
V B <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/dotnet/faqs/>