Unifying Hardware and Software

Matt Whiteside 8,9,2017
Unifying Hardware and Software

Q: Regarding a language that “unifies hardware and software, uniformly characterizing computation through all levels of abstraction” is an attractive idea that’s also crossed my mind, but I don’t see it getting much appreciation by programmers.  To give a concrete example from my own experience of a deficiency that a unified approach would address, consider GPU programming.  You start with a nice high level, type-safe, statically analyzed language running on the CPU, which must then interface with a shader program on the GPU, and therefore throw all the type safety, static analysis, correctness guarantees, etc., out the proverbial window.  It’s hard even to imagine what possibilities could open up if even a moderate amount of progress was made towards improving this situation.

A: The unification. I see both ends doing the same computation. The processor sequences operations, the clock sequences operations. EEs actually talk about the massive concurrency at the circuit level. They don’t seem realize that they throw 99.9% of the concurrency away to actually sequence one or a few steps. They are mildly aware of inefficiency in that they include clock gating but buried in transistor details they are not sensitive to what they are doing in the context of computation. This is one of the thrusts of what I am pursuing. What is the fundamental nature of computation and its most primitive implementation consistent with that nature and how does this implementation seamlessly scale to arbitrary complexity. This is the question that CSR began addressing and which I am still working on. Computation should be uniformly characterizable in all its manifestations. It seems to me that this uniform characterization must embody concurrency as fundamental and that the notion of the sequential process is a fundamental flaw in contemporary computer science. The traditional notion that any concurrent process can be mapped to a sequential process implying that sequentiality is more fundamental than concurrency is a red herring similar to the notion that planetary motions can be mapped into uniform motion around perfect circles. Both are true enough and they both sort of work and because of that they mask access to a more effective conceptual essence.

My thesis is that the model of networks of linked oscillations spans both primitive implementation and abstract interpretation unifying both domains. Part 4 will present the flow network interpreter architecture. The view of computation is modified for both domains but then they are unified.

Leave a Reply