I think the title that the authors decided to give this article was unnecessarily provocative in a distracting manner. I’m pretty sure there is a technical definition of low level language they are referencing that excludes C, and pretty much only includes assembly as a low level language. Ok, fine, whatever.
Their bigger point seems to be that C is no longer very mechanically sympathetic to huge modern cores, because the abstraction pretends there’s only one instruction in flight at a time. Is anyone aware of a language that fits the hardware better? Maybe Intel needs to release a “CUDA of CPUs” type language.
Their bigger point seems to be that C is no longer very mechanically sympathetic to huge modern cores, because the abstraction pretends there’s only one instruction in flight at a time. Is anyone aware of a language that fits the hardware better? Maybe Intel needs to release a “CUDA of CPUs” type language.