4 ms·
Oops, sorry, that RISC-V code will be 128 cycles per loop on SeRV not 96, as the branch needs 64 cycles. So about 470 loops per second not 600 on that flexible
by brucehoult 2y ago
Oops, sorry, that RISC-V code will be 128 cycles per loop on SeRV not 96, as the branch needs 64 cycles. So about 470 loops per second not 600 on that flexible chip.
Of course this doesn't alter the point about being as fast as the BASIC that early PCs came with, the only thing most end users had to write their own programs on them until things such as Turbo Pascal appeared (November 1983).
- marshray 2y agoOne would have to run a similar BASIC interpreter on this processor to make that a reasonable comparison, and that would only highlight how ridiculously impractical this demo unit is. If you want an computer that you can wrap around a pencil, I bet it could be done simply using a very small conventional silicon chip embedded in a flexible medium. Perhaps some of this technology could help with interconnections.
- brucehoult 2y agoNo, because everyone now has high quality free C / C++ / Rust / Swift / Mojo compilers. Interpreted BASIC was the only thing most end users had on those computers, for quite a few years, until Turbo Pascal and Think Pascal/C changed everything. Professional software was written in assembly language but at the start of the revolution most of the programs that people wrote themselves, or that you saw printed in magazines to type in yourself, were in BASIC. It was fast enough for many tasks.
- marshray 2y agoI remember that era. The vast majority of "tasks" that were done in BASIC were simple games. It was all-but a toy. It makes no sense to compare the execution speed of the output of a modern C++ or Rust compiler on one architecture to a BASIC interpreter on another.