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?
