iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by igouy on Monday April 03, 2023 @12:19PM (#35426497)

fwiw

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by lproven on Monday April 03, 2023 @01:44PM (#35428156)

Not sure what you are trying to tell us here, TBH.

Can you explain in words?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by igouy on Monday April 03, 2023 @04:10PM (#35430540)

Data. You say "2nd only to C" but don't provide data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by lproven on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @01:40PM (#35443285)

Aha, ISWYM now.

I can't. I just remember noticing it a few years back, and being surprised, and then checking occasionally and it stayed there for a while.

Why not contact them and ask, if you're curious? If I'm wrong, you'll have the pleasure of refuting me. ;-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by igouy on Wednesday April 05, 2023 @12:39PM (#35456889)

> Compared to C++, Ada is a tiny lean fast sportscar of a language.

We can see C++ program measurements faster than Ada program measurements in those archived "programming language benchmarks game" charts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:iAPX432: Gordon Moore, Risk and Intel’s Super-CISC Failure by lproven on Thursday April 06, 2023 @04:20AM (#35465716)

What I was getting at was the size of the language, not its compiled speed.

Does any single human understand all of C++ and use it all? Is it even possible any more? If they did, could anyone else read the code?

[ Parent | on HN ]