Its incredibly how dismissive people are, and clearly haven't thought about it that much.
> ISA fragmentation ... binary distributions harder.
A overly simply one-sided analysis. You have to look at the cost and the benefits. Not simply say 'look there is a cost' therefore it is bad.
The modular architecture also allows RISC-V to be optimal in many different industries and form factors, from literally the smallest CPU ever created to massive multi-core servers.
The system is designed so that as much software as possible can run on the minimal spec and thus work does not have to be repeated between different industries.
Just because people use the custom extension feature a lot with embedded, does not imply that the same thing happens for desktop/server. The constrains are different, the market is different, the industry is different. So far we have seen all linux distribution build on the same profile.
> Economics. RISC-V has actively courted embedded, which makes sense as a niche.
Actually wrong. The first profile that was standardized was the one for full linux.
Embedded simply got more interest because more people could get it to market faster, and many universities work on embedded.
This is open source, people are just gone use it for what they want, and embedded had the most need and the lowest barrier to entry.
> Openness doesn’t tickle down. The openness of an ISA doesn’t have much impact on the implementation. A design with restricted signing keys is completely acceptable under their licensing
The point of RISC-V to make it POSSIBLE to create an open chip and use it commercially.
People for many reasons wanted to use open implementations, and RISC-V makes this possible.
And thanks to this philosophy there are actually where nice open chips and open chips that have commercial appeal.
To say well not everything is open therefore its bad, is just such a wrongheaded attitudes, its unbelievable.
> Design flaws. RISC-V seems like it hasn’t learned anything from CPUs designed after 1991.
If you actually read the spec, the literally have design consideration for every instruction with all the learning from the past and why they did them. Simply because you don't agree with all their conclusions, doesn't mean they didn't learn anything.
And when drawing conclusions from only point out the issues with one side, without considering the others, you are just not doing serious analysis.
> ISA fragmentation ... binary distributions harder.
A overly simply one-sided analysis. You have to look at the cost and the benefits. Not simply say 'look there is a cost' therefore it is bad.
The modular architecture also allows RISC-V to be optimal in many different industries and form factors, from literally the smallest CPU ever created to massive multi-core servers.
The system is designed so that as much software as possible can run on the minimal spec and thus work does not have to be repeated between different industries.
Just because people use the custom extension feature a lot with embedded, does not imply that the same thing happens for desktop/server. The constrains are different, the market is different, the industry is different. So far we have seen all linux distribution build on the same profile.
> Economics. RISC-V has actively courted embedded, which makes sense as a niche.
Actually wrong. The first profile that was standardized was the one for full linux.
Embedded simply got more interest because more people could get it to market faster, and many universities work on embedded.
This is open source, people are just gone use it for what they want, and embedded had the most need and the lowest barrier to entry.
> Openness doesn’t tickle down. The openness of an ISA doesn’t have much impact on the implementation. A design with restricted signing keys is completely acceptable under their licensing
The point of RISC-V to make it POSSIBLE to create an open chip and use it commercially.
People for many reasons wanted to use open implementations, and RISC-V makes this possible.
And thanks to this philosophy there are actually where nice open chips and open chips that have commercial appeal.
To say well not everything is open therefore its bad, is just such a wrongheaded attitudes, its unbelievable.
> Design flaws. RISC-V seems like it hasn’t learned anything from CPUs designed after 1991.
If you actually read the spec, the literally have design consideration for every instruction with all the learning from the past and why they did them. Simply because you don't agree with all their conclusions, doesn't mean they didn't learn anything.
And when drawing conclusions from only point out the issues with one side, without considering the others, you are just not doing serious analysis.