4 ms·

> It's really not, though. What C is an abstraction of is computer architecture as it existed by the late 1960s. I don't follow. Barring micro-code, hardware i

by hgs3 4y ago

> It's really not, though. What C is an abstraction of is computer architecture as it existed by the late 1960s. I don't follow. Barring micro-code, hardware is designed for executing either RISC or CISC instructions. If anything, the industry has matured and we see less esoteric ISA's today than in the 1960s.

estebank 4y ago
A modern low level labguage would expose you to the concepts of cache lines and homogeneous and eterogeneous cores directly, with locality awareness to recognize false sharing. It would be something suitable to program the Cell architecture from PS2.
- addaon 4y ago
  What about those of us working on microcontrollers that use TCM rather than cache, and that don't have multiple cores? C sure seems like a good fit…
- hgs3 4y ago
  Those are fair points, but they're probably too specific to the architecture to incorporate in C's general execution model. They're better exposed through platform specific programming interfaces like OpenMP or CUDA. Even a domain specific language, like GLSL, may be more appropriate.
  - turndown 4y ago
    I think that the general point being made here is that C’s general execution model, as you call it, really is just a PDP-like computer because that is what they had when making C.
    - hgs3 4y ago
      The confusion I have is that the original commenter makes it sound like the abstract machine C is designed for is not relevant today. While modern desktop hardware may use various techniques to improve performance, like cache lines or specialized cores, they are an implementation detail of that abstract machine. I would not expect C to expose these hardware specifics because C targets a lowest common denominator, from consumer desktop hardware to microprocessors. If the criticism is that C is too general, then that's fair but also applies to every C competitor: Rust, Zig, D, etc... It's debatable how much these languages should include versus exposed by vendor specific API's. Perhaps we need a fork of C designed exclusively for modern desktop hardware.

by hgs3 4y ago

estebank 4y ago

A modern low level labguage would expose you to the concepts of cache lines and homogeneous and eterogeneous cores directly, with locality awareness to recognize false sharing. It would be something suitable to program the Cell architecture from PS2.

addaon 4y ago
What about those of us working on microcontrollers that use TCM rather than cache, and that don't have multiple cores? C sure seems like a good fit…
hgs3 4y ago
Those are fair points, but they're probably too specific to the architecture to incorporate in C's general execution model. They're better exposed through platform specific programming interfaces like OpenMP or CUDA. Even a domain specific language, like GLSL, may be more appropriate.
- turndown 4y ago
  I think that the general point being made here is that C’s general execution model, as you call it, really is just a PDP-like computer because that is what they had when making C.
  - hgs3 4y ago
    The confusion I have is that the original commenter makes it sound like the abstract machine C is designed for is not relevant today. While modern desktop hardware may use various techniques to improve performance, like cache lines or specialized cores, they are an implementation detail of that abstract machine. I would not expect C to expose these hardware specifics because C targets a lowest common denominator, from consumer desktop hardware to microprocessors. If the criticism is that C is too general, then that's fair but also applies to every C competitor: Rust, Zig, D, etc... It's debatable how much these languages should include versus exposed by vendor specific API's. Perhaps we need a fork of C designed exclusively for modern desktop hardware.