Rogelio Serrano wrote:
On 5/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> besides, its so easy to write one.
> provided you have the instruction set manuals.
Oh, yeah? For the Intel x86 series? Across all its instruction sets,
emulation modes and addressing modes? How long do you think it will
take you? And what language would you write in? On what platform?
++L
yes. and is it easier if you build it into the code generator? the
designers actually dont give you a choice.
i wrote an assembler as a testing tool for the code generator. in the
end i just refactored the assembler into the code generator. i just
coded for a small subset that is needed.
the root of all this evil is the designer of the processor. can we
make them change their ways? not until we start designing our own.
Be fair - they have to make optimization choices also.
And some coders have done just that. Chuck Moore and the forth chipset.
Others since. Not enough was gained to prevail.
First off, most such ended up dog-slow. After all, a binary ordinarily needs to
be compiled ONCE, and the chipset could give a Massatwoshits with what language
or toolset.
likewise, though it's hard to sidestep the x86 'inertia', it IS happening.
Look at the ARM, to name just one example.
And mobile devices and STB's are a *huge* market - hence there is money
available.
Meanwhile, Google is 'enabling' solutions that need less local power or storage,
and they are by no means alone.
A major paradigm shift is underway - much of it toward the very environment
Plan9 envisioned. Regardless of language.
oh right i could just buy a non-x86 non-pc system. like i can find any
within 1k km where i live.
C'mon! FedEx, postal service, or pack mule don't reach your corner of the globe?
Ability to post here says you can place an order.
Bill
