3 ms·
Correct - it's an argument for broadening the title. Calling out a specific language as not being something leads one to ask, "Well what is?". In this case, th
by swsieber 9y ago
Correct - it's an argument for broadening the title.
Calling out a specific language as not being something leads one to ask, "Well what is?". In this case, there is no qualifying alternative, so the title might as well be, "There is no low-level language for CPUs".
- Avshalom 9y ago... any more. It's not a category that can't exist, it just doesn't have any members right now.
- mattnewport 9y agoIt actually can't exist at all for current modern CPUs (x64/ARM/PowerPC) since they don't expose a programming interface for many of the things discussed in the article (speculative / out of order execution, register renaming, full cache control).
- Avshalom 9y agoYeah but it can for all sorts of microcontroller-y chips; embedded CPUs; DSPs; theoretical future CPUs that aren't trying to both act like a PDP11 and go faster every year...
- munificent 9y ago> Calling out a specific language as not being something leads one to ask, "Well what is?". The article does basically answer this. The last section is about what it would mean to design a chip such that a low level language were possible to design for it.