>You can't have all the algorithms implemented in hardware. How well would your CPU work for any algorithm unknown in advance? That depends. There are, clearl

>You can't have all the algorithms implemented in hardware. How well would your CPU work for any algorithm unknown in advance? That depends. There are, clearly, however, some algorithms that are common enough to warrant inclusion in hardware. I feel you're not arguing in good faith if you believe basic arithmetic is warranted, but something extremely common, such as support for arbitrary-length arithmetic or exception systems aren't. >Do you have any benchmarks comparing Lisp processors to ARMs and MIPS in day-to-day tasks like compression algorithms, codecs, 3d rendering? No. >Do you have any resources on that? I dislike Wikipedia, but here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_machine >Would it work for complex convolutions (e.g. arrays of arrays of complex nums convoluted with arbitrary kernels)? If the hardware supported it. If not, you'd likely build it out of the hardware support for simpler arrays. Having arrays of arrays is an easy solution, since then each axis could be checked in turn. >Letting the CPU do so, I'm not sure if it would be as efficient as in compile time. Again, it's not just about efficiency, but safety. This is an entire class of error prevented in hardware. That's useful.