>team of world-class experts who have spent 10+ years of their lives completely redesigning all the parts of the CPU from scratch, along with a completely new low-level software stack on top of it. They’ve taken no salaries during that time.
Except for, you know, the main part of your quote: "completely redesigning all the parts of the CPU from scratch, along with a completely new low-level software stack on top of it."
Not asking this rhetorically; how is it that RISC-V, also a major hardware development effort, was able to get a lot more done (including commercial chip production) in a lot less time (~6 years) without being patent-encumbered?
These projects have completely different scope. Wikipedia on RISC-V:
> The designers claim that new principles are becoming rare in instruction-set design, as the most successful designs of the last forty years have become increasingly similar. Most of these that failed, failed because their sponsoring companies failed commercially, not because the instruction-sets were technically poor. So, a well-designed open instruction set designed using well-established principles should attract long-term support by many vendors.
* * *
> Not asking this rhetorically
It’s hard to take your comment seriously, since you don’t seem to understand what the Mill people are trying to do (even in basic concept, i.e. rethinking the entire design of the CPU).
I recommend you watch a few of Ivan Godard’s lectures. That will give you a much better idea than reading discussion here.
I've been reading the mill papers for the last few years, and I'm still not sure why they haven't done even a basic PoC in the 10+ years they've been working on this.
reminds me of gimp, or emacs