[dons]

I think we're going to see some clever optimizing DSLs (a la FFTW) -- restricted languages for the kinds of embedded programs you write on such an architecture will be easier to optimize than general purpose languages. Particularly if they have a clear cost model.

The Haskell embedding is very likely to head in that direction.

(See e.g. in this style : http://www.fftw.org/faq/section4.html#whyfast or this style : http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/papers/polymer.pdf -- code generation + DSL + constraint solver for instruction level timings).

At least, that's what I'd do.

[masklinn]

Low-level lisps à la GOOL/GOAL[0] will probably gain some traction as well, or so I hope.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp

[wjbr]

Did they ever get released to the public?

[duaneb]

No, but the design docs are still out there if you contact the former engineers. I would distribute them if I had permission.

[cpeterso]

I agree that 0x10c DSLs that control game play will be more successful than a C compiler. :)

[mzl]

The polymer article was very interesting, really cool stuff. However, I could not find any mention of using a constraint solver for instruction level timings. Is that in another article, or did I just miss it?

[dons]

That's not in the polymer paper, but its what FFTW is doing (and the ICC compiler that we relied on for the monte carlo work).

[mzl]

Thanks. I misread the content description as referring to the latter paper only.