In a recent paper, Gordon Bell and Jim Gray put forth a view of the past, present, and future of high-performance computing (HPC) that is both insightful and thought provoking. Identifying key trends with a grace and candor rarely encountered in a single work, the authors describe an evolutionary past drawn from their vast experience and project an enticing and compelling vision of HPC's future. Yet, the underlying assumptions implicit in their treatment, particularly those related to terminology and dominant trends, conflict with our own experience, common practices, and shared view of HPC's future directions. We offer an alternate perspective on several key issues in the form of a constructive counterpoint.