[dacryn]

for hobbyists yes. Usually people stick to the technology they first started experimenting with, and RPi is that platform for many future experts.

If you are going to learn computer architecture, you will learn something cheap you have on hand

[tjoff]

The technology is linux, gpios etc. not which instruction set the CPU has. That is completely irrelevant and raspberry switching to USB-C is a much bigger change from a user standpoint than switching to RISC-V would be.

Assuming performance and software support is comparable. Which obviously won't be the case for a long long time.

But there are few things as irrelevant as the CPU instruction set. (Part from specific extensions, like AES support enabling quick crypto etc.)

[yndoendo]

> The technology is ...

The technology is what people know. Using a different SoC board, camera, ... requires adds more time to gain the same level of knowledge.

Doctors will latch onto a single product solution so they don't have to spend the time learning how to operate an alternative. Hospitals need to stock consumables based not on the best products but on what doctors know.

Airlines retain the same air crafts to reduce time spent learning to operate an alternative. Boeing marketed this as a sales feature with 737 MAX, no extra flight training required!

Software developers will often stick with the same language, even though others better fit the domain problem. Few seem willing to take the time to try and play with new concepts, languages, and operating systems.

Trying new and different things drives innovation not the world.

[tjoff]

Exactly my point. Changing the instruction set on the CPU won't change the API for the camera etc.

Some things will surely change because the hardware backed features work in a different way, but mostly it will be similar enough.

Going from a raspberry pi to an orange pi could be a much bigger leap than switching to an raspberry with RISC-V that has mature software support.

[freedomben]

Very much disagree. Of course linux and GPIO is important, but the widest use case for them among myself and people I know is as a build box and/or something to test ARM software on. One person uses it to learn ASM. From my small and surely non-representative sample, the architecture is maybe the most important thing. So I don't think we can confidently say that CPU arch isn't relevant.

[_pigpen__]

But instruction set, in practice and in this case, is tightly coupled with form factor and MIPS per watt. I work in mobile robotics: my low end choice is RPi, high end an NVIDIA board. While I can see Risc-V challenging ARM here, they don’t yet. (Excepting an ultra low power/low compute edge-case.) I just don’t see any CISC architecture that’s available today competing.

[runlaszlorun]

> But there are few things as irrelevant as the CPU instruction set.

I’m going to have to disagree with that statement…

… but only because I’m in the middle of goofing around with ARM assembly on an RPi as we speak.

[chx]

I ... do not know.

The Amiga 500 didn't make people stick to the m68k. They went IBM PC as did everyone else.

[liotier]

And they are still bitter about it !