> RISC-V The work is underway: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pulls?q=label%3Aarch-riscv https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pulls?q=label%3Aarch-riscv > Nvi

> RISC-V The work is underway: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pulls?q=label%3Aarch-riscv https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pulls?q=label%3Aarch-riscv > Nvidia's PTX, AMD https://ilgpu.net/ https://ilgpu.net/ and even https://github.com/m4rs-mt/ILGPU/blob/c3af8f368445d8e6443f36c99488fc601adcd737/Samples/InlinePTXAssembly/Program.cs https://github.com/m4rs-mt/ILGPU/blob/c3af8f368445d8e6443f36... While not PTX, there's also this project: https://github.com/Sergio0694/ComputeSharp https://github.com/Sergio0694/ComputeSharp which partially overlaps with what ILGPU offers Arguably, even C++ itself - you are not using "full" C++ but a special subset that works on top of specific abstraction to compile to GPUs, and I was told that CUDA C++ is considered legacy. The original context of discussion is performance and perceived issue of "having runtime", which is what my reply is targeted at. In that context, C# provides you the tools and a solution other languages in the class of Java, Go, TS and anything else interpreted just don't have. So you could reasonably replace a project written in C++ that requires assurances provided by C++ with C#, and possibly re-apply all the freed-up developer productivity into further optimizations, but you wouldn't be able to do so with the same degree of confidence with most other originally high-level languages. Another upcoming contender is Swift.