Re: [stack] Concatenative Hardware Redux (Another 16 Instruction Set)

On Jan 11, 2008 12:45 AM, Daniel Ehrenberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Don't you think basic arithmetical operators would be useful, if this
> might eventually be actual and not theoretical hardware?  If you only
> have and, shift and xor, maybe it's *possible* to implement arithmetic
> (I personally don't know how) but it wouldn't be as efficient.

You overlooked add. With that we can perform all arithmetical
operations without too much problems. Of course, this is not
appropriate for a PC CPU, but rather a very small embedded device.

> There's
> no real point in restricting yourself to 16 operations, especially
> when some of these operations will encode a literal and some of them
> won't.

I am looking at here the possibilities of implementing minimal
hardware that is cheap, small, and has very little energy consumption.

However, to be completely honest, the more I experiment with the
instruction set, the more I think that I would prefer to work with a
255-instruction set (ala JVML).

- Christopher