Gary Willoughby: "Why Go's design is a disservice to intelligent programmers"

[weaselcat via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Saturday, 28 March 2015 at 18:39:47 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 17:57 +0000, ketmar via 
> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 14:28:00 +0000, Russel Winder via
>> Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
>> 
>> > It could be argued that it is all just co-routines 
>> > underneath, but I
>> > think that would be missing the point that we have 55 years 
>> > more
>> > experience of doing these things since that single processor 
>> > operating
>> > system model was created. We really should be doing this all 
>> > a lot
>> > better these days.
>> 
>> yet current CPUs are still the same as 50 years before, that 
>> is the problem. ;-)
>
> I'd suggest that a Intel x86_64 of 2015 bears only a passing
> relationship to an IBM 360 of the 1960s.
>
> It is true that hardware design has been constrained by a weird
> constraint that no-one has investigated alternative 
> architectures to
> the register/CPU that software people insist is the only way 
> forward.
>
> With all the transistors available per mm² these days, it is 
> about
> time we investigated alternate, implicitly parallel ways of 
> working.
> Intel had a go a few years ago with various alternative 
> dataflow based
> architectures, but they were told by the software people that 
> they had
> no future because software inertia was more important than 
> innovation.
> 

Thoughts on mill architecture?