platform or architecture
If i had done this search before I wrote the message that precipitated
it, I would have reversed my use of "platform" and "architecture", but I
would still have used those two words.
This is what I found...
Associated with the Debian site:
--------------------------------
Microprocessor families are referred to as either "platform" or
"architecture".
Specific computer systems are referred to as "sub-architecture" (only in
the installation docs), "platform", "architecture" and "model".
so much for consistency
>From various online dictionaries and encyclopedias:
---------------------------------------------------
It is hard to determine a single or predominant denotation for either of
these words (platform or architecture), I say "either" because I could
not find an entry anywhere for "subarchitecture" or "sub-architecture".
You can have both hardware and software platforms and architectures.
As far as concrete references
(references to actual things, rather than to concepts) go...
Intel refers to the "Intel Architecture", and everybody knows about
Industry Standard Architecture (ISA), for the most part what I came
across was hardware related (primarily peripheral interfaces).
Specific platforms mentioned are: Windows, MacOS, UNIX.
The "TechEncyclopedia" (www.webtechs.com) starts its entry for
"platform" with: "A hardware or software architecture."
So, although the denotation of these words is confused at best,
the most common usage still appears to be "architecture" for hardware
and "platform" for software.
As far as "sub-architecture" is concerned...
There is no common definition for the term, so it it not technically
incorrect to use it as it has been... but it may be confusing to some.
I hear/see "sub-architecture" and think of ISA, PCI, VESA,...
I would reccomend using "architecture" for the processor families
(i386, m68k, etc.), and "platform" to refer to the specific computer
systems Debian supports (atari, mac, amiga, etc.).
- Bruce
Reply to: