@AmpBenzScientist i'd love to prototype on something RISC-V based but i suspect performance and availability isn't quite there yet.
@AmpBenzScientist i took a look at the RISC-V ISA docs and, "huh, everything actually makes sense. this is logical."
@lore I wish I could tell you that it is that simple. So RISC-V allows customization, modification and building one's own IP.
It's mostly that simple honestly. The problems arise when Reverse Engineering. They are getting much better. A RISC-V CPU destroyed an Apple Silicon M1 in a benchmark while using less power. RISC-V is getting DSP, Vector and numerous other extensions in the future. The assembly language is fantastic.
@lore In my country they say that opposites attract. I love RISC-V and FPGSs.
It makes a lot of sense with the ISA but I've been told before that I wasn't looking at the correct ISA and that it's not written in stone. Hopefully things have changed because it wasn't easy to work with and making absolute garbage is bad for sales. Performance was surprisingly good but my two experiences were on the more cursed chips.
Just do your research before you buy one. I was hoping for an open ecosystem and I found out that it was actually a portal to hell. If you thought that setting up a development environment was bad, RISCY 5ish was a fresh layer of hell thanks to all those companies involved.
I really despise the manufacturers of my chips and I know they could have been more transparent or followed a standard. RISC-V is a fantastic ISA but the companies were horrible. It could have changed but until I see domestic production and entirely open designs, I wouldn't buy one and expect anything but disappointment.
@AmpBenzScientist i haven't looked at extensions but the base spec seems solid. i don't know. maybe i just like RISC architectures but it just struck me as unusually logical and sensible.