3 ms·

I would prefer a python interpreter written directly in rv64 assembly with a near 0-SDK. Would run on x86_64 and arm64 with a rv64 interpreter (ofc with some co

I would prefer a python interpreter written directly in rv64 assembly with a near 0-SDK. Would run on x86_64 and arm64 with a rv64 interpreter (ofc with some code paths adaptation).

matheusmoreira 3y ago
I made a lisp that's somewhat close to what you described. It's a freestanding lisp that targets the Linux kernel directly. No libraries, not even libc. https://github.com/lone-lang/lone https://github.com/lone-lang/lone
- sylware 3y ago
  The idea would be to write a port in rv64 assembly, and to run it in a x86_64/arm64 interpreter (for legacy support). I am currently written rv64 assembly for some project, and at the same time I am writting a x86_64 interperter for this rv64 assembly code. rv64 assembly is the new C.
  - whitten 3y ago
    Really? I would assume any assembly language is worse to program than C
    - sylware 3y ago
      It is more upfront work for sure. But you get immunity from the planned obsolescence of syntax feature creeps from ISO or gcc extensions (a 5-10 years cycle)... and from compiler implementations. Additionnally, if we are honnest with ourselves for a lot of programs, from a life cycle perspective, coding time of the bulk is actually negligictible. It is not the case with all types of programs though, but for a lot of system programs, this is very true. And rv64 is supposed to become THE ISA standard. One of the main reasons for C existence is ISA abstraction which is kind of gone here. Of course, I wish risc-v to be a success.
marcpaq 3y ago
If you mean "Lisp" interpreter, then I also did something that's kinda what you're describing: https://github.com/marcpaq/arpilisp https://github.com/marcpaq/arpilisp