People with absolutely no technical clue who only know "ISO 9001" equate "ISO" with quality initiatives and certifications.

What people with a better clue sometimes wrongly equate ISO with is interoperability.

ISO standards can help somewhat. If you have ISO RISC V, then you can analyze a piece of code and know, is this strictly ISO RISV code, or is it using vendor extensions.

If an architecture is controlled by a vendor, or a consortium, we still know analogous things: like does the program conform to some version of the ISA document from the vendor/consortium.

That vendor has a lot of power to take it in new directions though without getting anyone else to sign off.

▲

IshKebab a day ago | parent | next [-]

> is this strictly ISO RISV code, or is it using vendor extensions

I doubt it - the ISO standard will still allow custom extensions.

▲

Joel_Mckay a day ago | parent | prev [-]

A standard 64bit+DSP RISC-V would go a long way for undoing the fragmentation damage caused by the "design by committee" implications.

..it was the same mistake that made ARM6 worse/more-complex than modern ARM7/8/9. =3

▲

kazinator a day ago | parent [-]

As if we have never seen design-by-committee damage coming from ISO?

Have you heard of this C++ thing? :)

	▲	Joel_Mckay a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Have you heard of this C++ thing? The STL was good, but Boost proved a phenomena... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect ISO standards are often just a sign Process-people are in control =3