> ...failure was i960 in BiiN project...failed in the market.
I was confused by that for a bit because my vague memory was that the i960 was a roaring success. The Wikipedia page you cite seems to agree:
> It became a best-selling CPU
Did you mean the i960MX that was used in BiiN?
> The i960MC included all of the features of the original BiiN system; but these were simply not mentioned in the specifications, leading some[who?] to wonder why the i960MC was so large and had so many pins labeled "no connect"
“....This model had many ramifications for the hardware, but it also introduced a dangerous dependency on software: the hardware was implicitly dependent on system software (namely, the compiler)...”
Compare the start of the touchscreen phone era: it looks to me like companies like Nokia lost to Apple primarily because they didn't have good enough software to go with the hardware.
You can point fingers at how Nokia had three different platforms fighting with each other, but maybe that's just a symptom and the real cause was that the software side needed several times the resources it was given.
When you can't get the basics right, it's inevitable that the OO aspects of the 432 would have failed.
They repeated this pattern with Itanium/VLIW, but this time the marketing was much better to the point that other vendors all but deprecated their architectures before Itanium was even released.