> I'm curious why you think RISC-V is the future and not ARM
I don't really, I was just keeping the comment short and avoiding the ire of any RISC-V fans. It could be either, but it's important to remember that instruction sets don't usually win solely based on merit.
For example, if you read most compiler books - because they were written in the early 2000s or late 90s, they spend almost all of their time discussing various RISC architectures (particularly the Alpha). The (then) 386 is usually mentioned in passing, ARM isn't even mentioned at all.
(You probably can guess what I'm getting towards) They're all dead, somehow ARM lives. It's also not really a question of money, Itanium wasn't that bad and Intel couldn't save it.
If I were God, the only CPU that I really really want to see make it to Silicon (even just to see if they're right) is the Mill. Even if they can't walk the walk it's a really nice concept (I think the belt will see use after their patent expires)
I don't really, I was just keeping the comment short and avoiding the ire of any RISC-V fans. It could be either, but it's important to remember that instruction sets don't usually win solely based on merit.
For example, if you read most compiler books - because they were written in the early 2000s or late 90s, they spend almost all of their time discussing various RISC architectures (particularly the Alpha). The (then) 386 is usually mentioned in passing, ARM isn't even mentioned at all.
(You probably can guess what I'm getting towards) They're all dead, somehow ARM lives. It's also not really a question of money, Itanium wasn't that bad and Intel couldn't save it.
If I were God, the only CPU that I really really want to see make it to Silicon (even just to see if they're right) is the Mill. Even if they can't walk the walk it's a really nice concept (I think the belt will see use after their patent expires)