From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Chris McGee Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 22:29:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a75bd40575168bea" Subject: Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?" Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0ec9b5a-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --000000000000a75bd40575168bea Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > 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? --000000000000a75bd40575168bea Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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?
--000000000000a75bd40575168bea--