Re: LLVM--Low Level Virtual Machine--and Ada

["Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net>]

"anon" <anon@anon.org> wrote in message 
news:spvoi.348118$p47.256522@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> The question should be. Should Ada be ported or is it a waste of time?

It certainly make sense to create an Ada port today.  The majority of CPU's 
available today are CISC and RISC.

> The LLVM is based on RISC concept and the RISC is being replaced by
> the ZISC aka (Zero Instruction Set Computer). The reason is that today
> most newer computer systems are based on parallel cpus and artificial
> neural networks. While RISC and CISC are based on a single processor
> which came from the early days computers using time-slicing to
> emulate a parallel system.
>
> In today world parallel cpu are here and in the next few years should
> replace all single cpu system and designs such as RISC and CISC. This
> suggest that LLVM to be on the cuting edge, needs to alter its design
> structure away from the RISC and go toward true parallel design such
> as ZISC. But as long as LLVM is using the RISC design that is being
> phased out then Ada should not be ported because there are better
> projects that are waiting in the wings.

I remember reading articles 20 years ago detailing how and why Prolog would 
replace all other programming languages.  Or the more recent example of VLIW 
computers replacing RISC and CISC designs.

It seems somewhat dubious to focus on a technology that is not in widespread 
use today.  While it certainly makes sense to explore these technologies, 
after all that is how we move forword, it should not be to the exclusion of 
existing technologies.

> So, when and only when LLVM updates or moves it designs to the future
> of computting should Ada be ported.
>

Using the same reasoning, you should always hold off on buynig or using a 
computer until future designs are available, since they will be much better.

> Note: This is not a cut down on RISC processors.  It is just that the
> world has outgrown the RISC before it had its true day in the sun.  But
> the main problem is that both CISC and RISC that were developed in the
> early days of computers.  We should have surpass both designed long
> ago, but the companies that create the CPU are still operated by those
> that think CISC or RISC is the way to go.  It will be fun to watch
> those guys sell their stock as newer designs finally take hold.

BTW: We're still in the early days of computers.

Regards,
Steve
(The Duck)