

We build what we love (or "how to save us from an x86-only world") - rbanffy
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/blog_en/we-build-what-we-love

======
ssp
_How many applications that run only (or, at least, better) on non-x86 boxes
were developed in the last couple years?_

The answer to this question is that a vast number of applications that only
run on the iPhone's ARM have been developed in the last few years. Also a
large number of web applications that run fine on on both ARM and x86 have
been developed.

The dying architecture is actually x86 because Windows is becoming irrelevant
for consumers. Not overnight, but it's happening. OS X runs on x86, but I
wouldn't be too surprised if Apple some day moves their laptops to ARM,
considering they have to do something interesting with their new, homegrown
chips.

~~~
rbanffy
Agreed: ARM is in no danger of going the way of the dodo. It's the dominant
platform on mobile devices.

Unfortunately, the ARM's dominance can have a negative effect in the diversity
of the segment, thus slowing down evolution on mobile platforms. Still, until
app availability weights the market down, mobile is more resistant to
fragmentation and friendlier to hardware diversity.

I would be delighted to see an ARM-based full-featured notebook, running an
open and portable userland, but I fear Apple is not a company that will favour
diversity. Given time, we may end up with the same problems we face today.

We need more than one alternative to x86. We need a fragmented market.

~~~
houseabsolute
I cannot see what benefit a fragmented processor instruction set market would
bring to anyone. It was more fragmented in the past and as far as I can tell
not much was different then except that even fewer programs could run cross
platform or virtualized.

~~~
crc32
It could be good under the assumption that other technology - compilers,
virtual machines, virtualisation, web apps - has moved on to the extent that a
wider variety of instruction sets could bring benefits rather than problems.

~~~
rbanffy
One could add that many of the compiler advancements happened to
counterbalance binary architecture limitations.

Contrast aggressive register optimization for function calling on most RISC
boxes with SPARC's moving register window or the hoops you have to jump
through on register-starved instruction sets like x86s.

------
vorador
I don't get the point of this article. After all, the OS is an abstraction
layer other the hardware and anyway, most cool developments happen in
software, not hardware nowadays.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Yes, but hardware still matters. Look at virtualization - yes, VMWare and co
mostly make it work, but it's slow, buggy and full of vulnerabilities. In
short, it's a kludge.

~~~
arethuza
I wouldn't describe VMWare ESX as slow or buggy.

~~~
rbanffy
Every x86 processors, however, is decidedly a kludge...

~~~
arethuza
Yes, but you can hardly blame VMWare for that.

~~~
rbanffy
No. Some kludginess is, in fact, excusable on grounds of being a counterkludge
to unkludge the physical processor. ;-)

