3 ms·
The complex processors like the PDPs were followed by risc processors because they were simpler. The hardwrae has to run code, I get that, but VLIW didn't work.
by throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
The complex processors like the PDPs were followed by risc processors because they were simpler. The hardwrae has to run code, I get that, but VLIW didn't work. Risc did. The x86 decompiles its opcodes into micro-ops which are load/store risc-y simple things. Simplicity was always the way to go.
I do take your point about VLIW, but I'm kind of assuming that the CPU has to, you know, actually run real workloads. So move the complexity out of the languages. Or strongly, statically type them. Or just don't use JS for server-side work. Don't make the hardware guys pick up after bad software.
- klelatti 6y agoWhen RISC first appeared they really were simpler than competing designs. But today I think it's hard to argue that modern pipelined, out of order processors with hundreds of millions of transistors are in any sense 'simple'. If there is a general lesson to be learned it's that the processor is often best placed to optimise on the fly rather than have the compiler try to do it (VLIW) or trying to fit a complex ISA to match the high level language you're running.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoI guess if "as simple as possible but no simpler" then I'd agree. > ...rather than [...] trying to fit a complex ISA to match the high level language you're running Again agreed, that was the point I was making.