4 ms·
I think we're going to see some clever optimizing DSLs (a la FFTW) -- restricted languages for the kinds of embedded programs you write on such an architecture
by dons 15y ago
I think we're going to see some clever optimizing DSLs (a la FFTW) -- restricted languages for the kinds of embedded programs you write on such an architecture will be easier to optimize than general purpose languages. Particularly if they have a clear cost model.
The Haskell embedding is very likely to head in that direction.
(See e.g. in this style : http://www.fftw.org/faq/section4.html#whyfast http://www.fftw.org/faq/section4.html#whyfast or this style : http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/polymer.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/polymer.pdf -- code generation + DSL + constraint solver for instruction level timings).
At least, that's what I'd do.
- masklinn 15y agoLow-level lisps à la GOOL/GOAL[0] will probably gain some traction as well, or so I hope. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp
- cpeterso 15y agoI agree that 0x10c DSLs that control game play will be more successful than a C compiler. :)
- mzl 15y agoThe polymer article was very interesting, really cool stuff. However, I could not find any mention of using a constraint solver for instruction level timings. Is that in another article, or did I just miss it?