[frjalex]

> It killed a lot of other interesting architectures and gave nothing in return.

What sort of architectures (if any) got killed as a direct result of developing IA-64?

That aside, though odd and impractical, I found Itanium to be at least a technically interesting perspective (both in terms of architecture, ie VLIW, and in terms of the amount of technical work it inspired at HP and Intel, such as the Itanium C++ abi [1])

[1] https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html

[garaetjjte]

>What sort of architectures (if any) got killed as a direct result of developing IA-64?

Alpha?

[hulitu]

And HP-PA and, later, MIPS (as a mainstream computer). MIPS survives in some routers.

[__d]

MIPS is very, very close to dead now.

To be fair though, I think its death is more attributable to ARM than Itanium. And RISC-V is killing off anything that remained.

[WorldMaker]

MIPS the brand was bought for cheap from a bankruptcy, and resurrected by its new owner… to be an ARM partner building ARM chips.

[aidenn0]

Arguably it was the nail in the coffin for alpha

[thequux]

Itanium may have been the nail in the coffin, but by the time the hammer fell on that nail, Alpha was already basically dead due to bad business structure and incentives that were inherited from DEC. They had many of the same problems that Intel has been having recently (low yields, failure to keep up with performance increases) without Intel's long-standing business agreements or inertia to hold up the product line through a difficult period.

[saati]

Alpha, HP-PA.