I agree that rv64 is easier to write than x86_64. My point was more that earlier ISAs were designed with human authors as a target audience, and that results in differences that are arguably (subjective) easier to hand write. Modern load store architectures are cleaner, but also quite verbose. 6502 is probably more representative of my point than 32bit x86, and most things in the 64 bit era are more compiler focused.
Yep. And from a hard real coding perspective, you are right about verbosity of load and store ISA. Hence the importance of having multi-instruction per line assemblers. Because, without that, coders may be too much tempted to abuse the preprocessor. In RISC-V, some hardware instructions are kind of meant to be used as a group (hardware instruction fusion here we come!), then instead of creating a macro, you would cut and past that group of instructions, properly "isolated" on its line.
I say that, because currently I am coding some x86_64, with a intel syntax dialect I can assemble with several assemblers which are fasmg, gas, nasm/yasm. Some of them are not multi-instruction per line, and I am kind of glad this is only CISC x86_64 and not RISC-V :)
But the feeling of freedom I get with assembly coding, because being independent of those abominations (I am sorry, but the word is fair...) of compilers (gcc|clang/llvm) is a breath of fresh air. I still code very simple and plain C from time to time, avoiding IS O C tantrum and gcc extension though (and using tinycc, cproc/qbe, simple-cc/qbe C compilers).
BTW, thinking out of the box of using a compiler for classic high level and complex syntax languages made me thing about using RISC-V as a language with... its compiler. It "should" be much more resilient to all those pesky long term issues classic complex computer languages suffer from.
