Reply To: Memory level parallelism and HW scouts

11 years have passed since I heard about Mill for the first time. It’s a long time.
The lack of realistic benchmarks is unfortunately very disappointing, especially since they can use the simulator.
There is no point in hiding from the competition, it does their things at own pace anyway.

I think that the whole project lacks a business approach. It was possible to use grants from the European Union to create a Linux version that would cope with the Mill memory model – due to energy savings it is ‘pro -ecological’.
All the fun in creating ideal architecture is immediately idiotic when it still uses the intermediate code, and the only markets on which it can be adapted quickly and are based on compiled sources or virtual machines (lamp/java/.Net/Android/Apple). Nvidia and AMD change GPU architecture every few years and it doesn’t matter.
It was necessary to ‘show meat’ as soon as possible, how well Gold and Silver cope with mobile applications and JS, and the rest of the improvements show later. The new security model is unnecessary for the first version, and the prototype can use ordinary uniform physical memory and run a trusted code only.
You need ‘proof of concept’. The lack of such a thing indicates that the benefits only occur after implementing the whole innovation, and this means that the core is essentially weak.
As I once pointed out that there is an Embedded market that can do without bells and whistles and first generation of product can operate using a 32-bit address space.