• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    That’s not what the article is saying though. It’s arguing that the memory model that imperative languages assume is not actually how modern chips work. What we end up with effectively is a VM on the chip that pretends to be a really fast PDP-11 style architecture. Writing assembly against this VM still has the same problem. Interestingly, the way modern chips are designed actually fits better with functional style that doesn’t rely on global state.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not familiar enough with how Habit and Ante represent memory allocation to say, but part of the problem right now is that there’s already a VM baked into the chip to provide the PDP-11 style emulation on top of it. Ideally, we’d want chips that expose their native behavior, and then craft languages to take advantage of it. Similarly to what we’re seeing happening with graphics chips.

        • velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Is this issue persistent in RISC-based processors too, like SPARC, POWER or RISC-V? Or is this a modular component that can go in with any architecture?

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            I imagine it would be the same dynamic, and you could have an emulation layer on the chip with its own instruction set for legacy code while providing direct access to the native instruction set.