6 ms·
> RISC-V cannot become the dominant ISA I absolutely want RISC-V to succeed but there is a difference between wanting it to succeed and wanting it to become 'd
by klelatti 4y ago
> RISC-V cannot become the dominant ISA
I absolutely want RISC-V to succeed but there is a difference between wanting it to succeed and wanting it to become 'dominant' or a 'lingua franca'. I find it a bit unnerving that to 'dominate' other ISAs is something that is being discussed.
- nwah1 4y agoIf you believe in the ideal of open specifications, it is something that you root for. Probably at least half the desire for dominance is coming from that motivation. The other half from normal profit motive. I guarantee that Intel and Qualcomm have the same aspirations of dominance.
- klelatti 4y agoI have to admit that I was a bit taken aback by that section. I don't think I've heard an open source software project (even linux) articulate a desire to dominate other projects. The principle of open source yes, but not a particular implementation. Also an ISA is quite different to a networking protocol where inter-operability is key.
- nwah1 4y agoI have seen a desire for dominance from Linux and Android users. From Rust users. From Typescript users. And from Gnome and KDE users. The developers generally don't feed into the "flame wars" but it is a long tradition in the open source world to pick a piece of software and viciously attack the merits and users of competing software. This also happens with users of proprietary software, as with Apple cultists and so on. It is just human nature.
- legulere 4y agoI think the ethernet example from the article showcases pretty well why you would want RISC-V to become a lingua franca.
- klelatti 4y agoEthernet as a networking standard generates huge benefits in interoperability between devices if there is a common standard. These benefits don't exist for an ISA. There are some benefits clearly but holding up Ethernet as the example is convenient but flawed. Clearly having an open ISA is great news and one that we should support and hope it succeeds. Advocating for that single ISA to crowd out all other ISAs and render them unviable isn't in my view for a number of reasons.
- legulere 4y agoYou have the same need of interoperability for ISAs. Being able to share compiled binaries is a huge advantage as can be seen with x86 on the desktop and ARM for mobile devices.
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y agoWhy wouldn't you want an open specification to dominate? That means at least half of the market would be open to all comers versus proprietary monopolies. Otherwise you're just asking for a less free and functioning market in processors.
- klelatti 4y agoDepends on what you mean by dominant. If it’s 60% fine but the tone here sounds like he means more than that.
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago90% or more would be fine as well, who needs proprietary monopiles? What's the benefit? Patterson is advocating for RV, but I'm sure he'd be happy with any set of open archs dominating, which is the point.
- klelatti 4y agoWho was advocating for a proprietary monopoly? Not me. > I’m sure he’d be happy with any set of open archs dominating. But he wasn’t. He was advocating for his own single arch dominating which is quite different.
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y agoI don't think so. He has no stake in it besides having some input into its design, as he has for other RISC designs. It's Dave Patterson, the famous academic, not Larry Ellison.