> The architecture has proven good enough for NASA…
The same NASA that has spent years circling the proverbial pork barrel strapping old school reusable shuttle boosters to a rocket as non-reusable kick boosters and struggling to fill said “old tech” without mishap (lessons already learned and documented again and again)? That NASA??
Frankly, invoking NASAs “buy in” as about like claiming that a revived BeOS has chosen it. Or that RIM plans to come out of receivership for their next gen “Blackberry V”. Or that Chrysler’s rerunning a limited re-edition of the PT Cruiser featuring RISC-V.
Other than that, I like RISC-V. I’m excited to see it grow.
Well, there's the NASA doing manned launches (or nowadays, working towards eventually being able to, to put it charitably) which, as you say, sadly seems co-opted by pork-barrel interests.
But there's also the science side of NASA that does stuff like space probes, the Hubble and James Webb telescopes, and so on. And this side seems to have a better track record (well, post-Apollo at least) of actually delivering something valuable. And, AFAIU it's this side that has chosen the RISC-V based platform for their future work.
The same NASA that has spent years circling the proverbial pork barrel strapping old school reusable shuttle boosters to a rocket as non-reusable kick boosters and struggling to fill said “old tech” without mishap (lessons already learned and documented again and again)? That NASA??
Frankly, invoking NASAs “buy in” as about like claiming that a revived BeOS has chosen it. Or that RIM plans to come out of receivership for their next gen “Blackberry V”. Or that Chrysler’s rerunning a limited re-edition of the PT Cruiser featuring RISC-V.
Other than that, I like RISC-V. I’m excited to see it grow.