5 ms·
> Wait, what does that even mean? I assume it cannot, then, run on hardware executing any form of microcode because that adds many man-years of what's essential
by eterps 6y ago
> Wait, what does that even mean? I assume it cannot, then, run on hardware executing any form of microcode because that adds many man-years of what's essentially software complexity to the problem.
Have you looked at the hardware design at http://www.projectoberon.com http://www.projectoberon.com ?
> What I'm trying to say is that at some point you have to draw a line and say "anything below this line is considered the platform the software runs on, and does not need to be included in the understanding" and where you draw this line is completely arbitrary.
What I am trying to say is that Project Oberon proofs it's possible to run it on a hardware design that can be understood by that same human being in one lifetime.
> I have yet to hear a rational argument for why a particular thing counts as "the platform" more than any other.
Again, I am talking about the complete thing.
And how is this even a discussion? The amount of added complexity when you compare an Oberon system with a modern phone or desktop is staggering. Especially if you go as deep as the microcode level.
- kqr 6y agoMaybe part of the problem is that I underestimate how much a human can understand in a lifetime! Thinking more critically about it, you might be right that it's possible to accomplish more than I expect.
- eterps 6y agoYeah, I guess it depends on what legacy you're willing to part from. Something like https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Computing-Systems-Building-Principles/dp/0262640686/ https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Computing-Systems-Building-P... is not hard, but it's arguably a toy system. IMO Project Oberon starts from the same principles and builds up to a productive enironment including text processing, a compiler, very basic hypertext, basic networking and hardware to run it on.