Post #3213182
2023-11-03 20:05 UTC
@thephd@pony.social on this note, do you think it would even be feasible to create a language that has "real" direct control of the hardware, insofar as the microarchitectures allow, with more than one architecture being supported? and would that even be recognisable as a "language" in the traditional sense of expressing types and goal-orientated abstractions, rather than essentially just being a procedural IL assembler/preprocessor toolchain that supports trivial structs?
Replies (2)
-
@cinebox@hackers.town 2023-11-03 20:14
@gsuberland@chaos.social @thephd@pony.social I’ve considered attempting the inverse and designing an architecture with types as an intrinsic part of the data model
-
@ignaloidas@not.acu.lt 2023-11-03 22:15
@gsuberland@chaos.social @thephd@pony.social You could kinda build that with effect systems, treating each instruction as an effect and only allowing static/predetermined effects to run after an optimization pass, essentially allowing you to have nice-ish macros if you want but still build a somewhat usable language. Though the exact effects would need to be tied to the architecture, only allowing abstractions shareable between architectures on a higher level where you don't have direct control of the hardware.