[LMH]Re: Various questions
Wed Apr 24 15:04:00 2002
John Morrison writes:
> Emmanuel Rialland wrote:
> > I know that those questions could sound provocative and but here w=
> > are:
> > 1) why C++?
> > why not lisp / scheme / OCaml or anything else (I remember
> > that simh was mentionned).
> Easier to put on raw hardware. If we were doing this in Lisp, and
> didn't care so much about a Lisp OS, putting more work into CMUCL/SB=
> and gutting a Linux distro might be the way to go.
Well C would even fare better than, wouldn't it? And Ocaml should also
be quite good. I once saw a rather rudimentary kernel booting the raw
iron from a floppy that was written in OCaml, but I can't remember the
name at the moment.
> Two other approaches that piqued my curiousity were:
> (a) FPGA-based PCI form-factor daughter boards for PCs. Apparently
> there are such beasts, complete with PC-based design tools that let =
> roll your own custom CPU. With a little bit of "life support" softw=
> you could have a Return of the Son of MacIvory (PC rather than Mac).=
> (b) A "soft" CPU (I forget the manufacturer), which was a sort of RI=
> part implemented inside of a single FPGA with lots and lots of extra=
> gates unused, with tools to let you roll your own co-processor out o=
> the remaining gates. The RISC part would become the New FEP, and yo=
> could configure a Lisp processor on the same chip with the unused
> gates. It also came mounted on a reference board, to ease developme=
> Ah, well. Pipe dreams...
But both of these seem very attractive solutions to me. I'd certainly
like to have something like that.
Wherever I lay my .emacs, there=B4s my $HOME.