There is nothing wrong with this. There were just too many RISC architectures out there. 25 years ago there were Alpha, SPARC, POWER, HP, ARM. This was bewildering. It seems today the trend is to standardize on ARM, but it would be nice if someone kept propping up RISC-V because we need one viable alternative and open source architecture.
It doesn't matter how many architectures are out there, what matters is instruction sets.
People talk about the x86 ISA all the time as if there were such a thing. There isn't. There's only the x86 IS, and lots of different ways to actually execute those instructions, although literally everyone today decomposes x86 instructions into RISC micro-ops.
I presume most other instruction sets are the same today, but don't know as much about 'em
Losing another ISA (Score:2)
Re: Losing another ISA (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with this. There were just too many RISC architectures out there. 25 years ago there were Alpha, SPARC, POWER, HP, ARM. This was bewildering. It seems today the trend is to standardize on ARM, but it would be nice if someone kept propping up RISC-V because we need one viable alternative and open source architecture.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter how many architectures are out there, what matters is instruction sets.
People talk about the x86 ISA all the time as if there were such a thing. There isn't. There's only the x86 IS, and lots of different ways to actually execute those instructions, although literally everyone today decomposes x86 instructions into RISC micro-ops.
I presume most other instruction sets are the same today, but don't know as much about 'em