RISC-V has been designed with the exact goal for being an ISA easy to implement in hardware, so that students will be able to do this. For this purpose, RISC-V

RISC-V has been designed with the exact goal for being an ISA easy to implement in hardware, so that students will be able to do this. For this purpose, RISC-V is excellent. The RISC-V ISA has not been designed as an efficient method for encoding computer programs and even less for being easy to program in assembly language. When programming in assembly language, a complex ISA is bad, because one cannot hold in mind all its peculiarities, but a too simple ISA is even worse, because every simple operation must be implemented by a complex sequence of instructions that is easy to forget and to get wrong. I wonder if any of those who claim that the RISC-V ISA is simple can remember without searching the documentation how to implement the checks for integer overflow after each arithmetic operation. The didactic examples of using RISC-V usually do not check for any errors, which is not acceptable in any critical application. I find funny that sometimes the same people who claim that the unsafe RISC-V ISA is good also claim that C and C++ are bad, because with default compilation options they are unsafe in comparison with e.g. Rust.