That's a big topic. I've been able to work around the missing primitives (for example, I autogenerate code for Rust-style structs and enums), but have had much

That's a big topic. I've been able to work around the missing primitives (for example, I autogenerate code for Rust-style structs and enums), but have had much bigger struggles around two issues: tools, which are still quite primitive, and understanding performance, which is extremely difficult. These two problems intersect because I can imagine a lot better tools for digging into performance issues. One that I would have paid good money for is an instruction-level simulator that would highlight the source code to tell me where the stalls, bank conflicts, divergence problems, etc. are in the source code. Such a thing is possible (there are academic papers like [1]), but not as far as I know usable in daily development. The "impedance mismatch" is that you (generally) have to write in a style to extract lots of parallelism. This tends to be very different than the way you'd write scalar CPU code, but not completely alien to me as it has a lot of similarity with the way you'd write SIMD. I've pretty much gotten the hang of it now. I'm thinking of a blog post of redoing path_coarse.comp from its current basically scalar style to a more parallel version, as that would I think illuminate the issues. [1] http://comparch.gatech.edu/hparch/papers/gera_ispass18.pdf http://comparch.gatech.edu/hparch/papers/gera_ispass18.pdf