|
| robocat wrote:
| > And if ARM beats x86, it won't be, straightforwardly, "because
| RISC is better" - x86 will have lost for business reasons, and it
| could have gone the other way for business reasons. But the fact
| that it will have lost to a RISC - that will be because RISC is
| technically better. That's why there's no CISC competitor to lose
| to.
|
| Yosef must be using a different definition of RISC from Jim
| Keller, because in Jim's interviews he says that modern ARM is
| essentially a CISC processor.
| shadowofneptune wrote:
| The idea that processors are so complex because of C is one of
| the more persistent stories on HN, and I have to wonder why. It's
| easy to find looking at publications from the time that the 68000
| and 8086 were marketed with Pascal or PL/M. We would have gotten
| a similar model of execution anyway even if C hadn't eaten the
| world.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-26 23:00 UTC) |