Rogelio Serrano wrote:
*snip*
actually its not hard to create a processor that is generic enough
that it does not need assembly and is not locked to any target
language.
Actually it is damned hard to create a processor that *is* 'locked' to any
language more complex than high/low/tristate tables.
I'd dare say 'couldn't be done' were it not for Pershing's quote.
What it *does* with those states, is of course what we have come to call an
'instruction set', if that is what you really meant by 'language'.
And there are such - including some x86 compatibles - where portions of that can
be altered without a major fab change.
For most use, the trend has been exaclty the other way. Folks prefer a
guaranteed-stable environment, even if it is a suboptimal one (x86
'compatibility' again).
Mostly it is about costs - not 'elegance' or convenience for the coder.
We've got to 'eat what is on our plate'.
Bill
