Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title. Add: isbn, chapter-url, chapter. Removed or converted URL. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 491/2845 |
Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.8.8) (Ost316 - 10330 |
||
Line 26:
A number of processors and coprocessors intended to implement [[Prolog]] more directly were designed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, including the [http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1991/6379.html Berkeley VLSI-PLM], its successor (the [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=74948 PLUM]), and a [http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1988/5870.html related microcode implementation]. There were also a number of simulated designs that were not produced as hardware [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=380918 A VHDL-based methodology for designing a Prolog processor], [http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=183879 A Prolog coprocessor for superconductors]. Like Lisp, Prolog's basic model of computation is radically different from standard imperative designs, and computer scientists and electrical engineers were eager to escape the bottlenecks caused by emulating their underlying models.
[[Niklaus Wirth]]'s [[Lilith (computer)|Lilith]] project included a custom CPU geared toward the [[Modula-2]] language.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://pascal.hansotten.com/index.php?page=history-of-lilith |title=Pascal for Small Machines – History of Lilith |publisher=Pascal.hansotten.com |date=28 September 2010 |access-date=12 November 2011 |archive-date=20 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320091110/http://pascal.hansotten.com/index.php?page=history-of-lilith |url-status=dead }}</ref>
The INMOS [[Transputer]] was designed to support concurrent programming, using [[occam (programming language)|occam]].
Line 53:
A further advantage is that a language implementation can be updated by updating the microcode ([[firmware]]), without requiring recompilation of an entire system. This is analogous to updating an interpreter for an interpreted language.
An advantage that's reappearing post-2000 is safety or security. Mainstream IT has largely moved to languages with type and/or memory safety for most applications. The software those depend on, from OS to virtual machines, leverage native code with no protection. Many vulnerabilities have been found in such code. One solution is to use a processor custom built to execute a safe high level language or at least understand types. Protections at the processor word level make attackers' job difficult compared to low level machines that see no distinction between scalar data, arrays, pointers, or code. Academics are also developing languages with similar properties that might integrate with high level processors in the future. An example of both of these trends is the SAFE<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.crash-safe.org/
==Disadvantages==
| |||