From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dave MacFarlane Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 07:23:27 -0400 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008c2b4e05751e0192" Subject: Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?" Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0ffacd6-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --0000000000008c2b4e05751e0192 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, 22:31 Chris McGee, wrote: > > I believe that the core of the problem with the C language is that is >> based upon abstracting the PDP-11 instruction set. CPUs, such as Intel/AMD >> x64 are vastly more complex so "optimising" C compilers are trying to make >> something simple take advantage of something far more complex. Perhaps we >> should call them "complexifying" compilers. >> >> Generally, model-to-model transformations (which is effectively what >> compilers do under the covers) are easier to define when we transform from >> a higher level of abstraction to a lower level of abstraction. As folks in >> the MBSE field explain it, trying to put a pig together from sausages. >> > > I wonder if the hardware world suffers from some of the same complexity > problems the software world does. Is it possible to build much simpler > hardware as well or are there real physical properties that force them to > be as complex as they are now? > Wasn't that the whole point of RISC? > --0000000000008c2b4e05751e0192 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, = Sep 4, 2018, 22:31 Chris McGee, <= newton688@gmail.com> wrote:
=

I believe that the core of the problem with the C= language is that is based upon abstracting the PDP-11 instruction set.=C2= =A0 CPUs, such as Intel/AMD x64 are vastly more complex so "optimising= " C compilers are trying to make something simple take advantage of so= mething far more complex.=C2=A0 Perhaps we should call them "complexif= ying" compilers.

Generally, model-to-model tr= ansformations (which is effectively what compilers do under the covers) are= easier to define when we transform from a higher level of abstraction to a= lower level of abstraction.=C2=A0 As folks in the MBSE field explain it, t= rying to put a pig together from sausages.
I wonder if the hardware world suffers from some of the same co= mplexity problems the software world does. Is it possible to build much sim= pler hardware as well or are there real physical properties that force them= to be as complex as they are now?
=

Wasn't that the who= le point of RISC?
--0000000000008c2b4e05751e0192--