3 ms·

Ah, so it's a so-called "high-level assembler" like PL/360 [0] for System/360 or PL-11 [1] for PDP-11? The problem with such languages is, well, C has killed th

Ah, so it's a so-called "high-level assembler" like PL/360 [0] for System/360 or PL-11 [1] for PDP-11? The problem with such languages is, well, C has killed them pretty thoroughly. You can take PCC, or LCC, or Tiny CC, and cobble a new instruction-emitter (for a relatively sane ISA) of decent quality in a week or so. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL360 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL360 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-11

patrick-ghetea 5mo ago
Hi Joker_vD, I really appreciate the comment and you’re mostly right—C was meant to be a portable assembly language that abstracts developers from machine instructions. Riscrithm isn’t trying to be a worse copy of C; it would be impossible for a single developer to match it. Instead, Riscrithm is meant to make writing RISC-V assembly simpler while maintaining a 1:1 relationship between Riscrithm lines and assembly lines. When writing a driver, you often need to use assembly, and with Riscrithm, you know exactly what each line does and how it’s translated. In contrast, with C/C++ or others, a single line of code can expand into many more assembly lines. This is just v1.0.0 (which I wrote in my free time this weekend), and v1.1.0 is coming soon with better features—I hope you’ll check it out! I should also apologize for the delay in my reply, but the time difference is quite the buzzkill!
benj111 5mo ago
Thing is. Old C killed them, new c will use UB to optimize things that can't happen, like integer overflow checks. C is no longer that high level assembler that killed the others. Plus I think you're being overly negative. This is a very under explored space in modern computing. As someone one who likes to get down to the bits and bytes, this looks like an interesting proposition.

3 ms·

Ah, so it's a so-called "high-level assembler" like PL/360 [0] for System/360 or PL-11 [1] for PDP-11? The problem with such languages is, well, C has killed th

by Joker_vD 5mo ago

patrick-ghetea 5mo ago
Hi Joker_vD, I really appreciate the comment and you’re mostly right—C was meant to be a portable assembly language that abstracts developers from machine instructions. Riscrithm isn’t trying to be a worse copy of C; it would be impossible for a single developer to match it. Instead, Riscrithm is meant to make writing RISC-V assembly simpler while maintaining a 1:1 relationship between Riscrithm lines and assembly lines. When writing a driver, you often need to use assembly, and with Riscrithm, you know exactly what each line does and how it’s translated. In contrast, with C/C++ or others, a single line of code can expand into many more assembly lines. This is just v1.0.0 (which I wrote in my free time this weekend), and v1.1.0 is coming soon with better features—I hope you’ll check it out! I should also apologize for the delay in my reply, but the time difference is quite the buzzkill!
benj111 5mo ago
Thing is. Old C killed them, new c will use UB to optimize things that can't happen, like integer overflow checks. C is no longer that high level assembler that killed the others. Plus I think you're being overly negative. This is a very under explored space in modern computing. As someone one who likes to get down to the bits and bytes, this looks like an interesting proposition.