3 ms·
When I read things like this, I get a little hope that with the end of Moore's law, we will actually start improving the instruction set architecture in such a
by jstewartmobile 10y ago
When I read things like this, I get a little hope that with the end of Moore's law, we will actually start improving the instruction set architecture in such a way that we can write performant software in higher-level languages instead of relying upon assembly++ languages like C, Go, and Rust.
I mean, with the number of VM languages out there like Java, PHP/Hack, .NET, various LISPs, etc. you'd figure that some hardware support for boxing/tagging/GC would be a standard feature by now, but nope. Instead, the best approach we have for secure and performant software with x86 is 1) write complicated system in tedious assembly++ 2) run under VM.
- SixSigma 10y agoBack to Burroughs architecture (if only!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_large_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_large_systems
- coldtea 10y agoBecause a single architecture change will solve all our issues and not cause countless others (if only!).
- TeMPOraL 10y ago> you'd figure that some hardware support for boxing/tagging/GC would be a standard feature by now, but nope. Instead, the best approach we have for secure and performant software with x86 is 1) write complicated system in tedious assembly++ 2) run under VM. The funny thing is that it all once was a standard feature of hardware, back in the Lisp Machines days.
- pjmlp 10y agoWe already had that in the 60's and 70's. It was the fact that AT&T could not charge money for UNIX and made its source available for free that changed that. Check Burroughs, Xerox PARC Star, UK Royal Navy Flex among a few others.
- jdeisenberg 10y agoI've always had fond memories of the Burroughs B1700 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_B1700 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_B1700) for such reasons.