On Saturday, 28 March 2015 at 18:39:47 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 17:57 +0000, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:28:00 +0000, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

> It could be argued that it is all just co-routines > underneath, but I > think that would be missing the point that we have 55 years > more > experience of doing these things since that single processor > operating > system model was created. We really should be doing this all > a lot
> better these days.

yet current CPUs are still the same as 50 years before, that is the problem. ;-)

I'd suggest that a Intel x86_64 of 2015 bears only a passing
relationship to an IBM 360 of the 1960s.

It is true that hardware design has been constrained by a weird
constraint that no-one has investigated alternative architectures to the register/CPU that software people insist is the only way forward.

With all the transistors available per mm² these days, it is about time we investigated alternate, implicitly parallel ways of working. Intel had a go a few years ago with various alternative dataflow based architectures, but they were told by the software people that they had no future because software inertia was more important than innovation.

Thoughts on mill architecture?

Reply via email to