Talk:One instruction set computer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this useful?
I.e, is there a point in building computers with this technique?
-
- See Esoteric_programming_languages
- "Usability is rarely a high priority for such languages. The usual aim is to remove or replace conventional language features while still maintaining a language that is Turing-complete. Thus, by adhering to some principles while deliberately making no sense as a whole, these languages are perhaps the programming equivalent of nonsense verse."
- Well, it can theoretically do quite a lot, and in fact it can probably do anything at all. It's just harder to do everything :-) --Ihope127 16:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting question.
- What about logarithm, I mean before few thousands of them where tabulated?
- And Babbage's machines, which I am sure Ada Lovelace would have started debugging with the passion of a pioneer?
- And FORTAN: how many time did it integrate bravely
EXP(-X/DKAY)*COS(2.0*PI*X+PHAS)in a manageable handful set of punch cards before someone eventually thought of wasting 0.032 seconds of its Wednesday compile time budget to print"1H(1)***HELLO_WORD***"somewhere in the twenty page cabalistic listing.
- Yes, this is actually a very enlightening subject when trying to think about how computers actually work. Furthermore, there may be an argument about designing the simplest possible computer hardware (Nanoscale computers anyone??) --216.204.206.146 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
--
About the suggested merges, I strongly advocate in favor
- OISC, SBN and URISC are minor variants. In facts, three out of 8 possible (and equivalent) options. In my opinion, the less user-unpractical is an (I think) undocumented reverse-subtract-and-branch-if-negative-or-zero.
- The distinction is however spurious because, if OISC come to practical life, humans will probably never code more than the one needed interface instruction.
- Moreover, nothing grants that the type of variant actually used, or produced, will be quanticaly observable.
-
- AlainD 23:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I am strongly in favor of URISC being made a subsection of OISC. OISC should refer to all possible machines with one instruction, and all should be in one place. ---
In favor of all merges. However OISC should be the encompassing article. It referes to the framework within which all these other phenomenon exist. --66.112.246.75 04:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
--
I'm confused, does this page provide three examples of OISC's (therefore three instructions that could be used for such a thing?) If so, it should be reworded to say that "*A* One Instruction Set Computer is a single machine language opcode...". It should then say "There are three known such instructions that can be used to implement a OISC: Subtract and branch if negative (SUBLEQ), Reverse-subtract and skip if borrow (RSSB), and Move. -- 216.204.206.146 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
