> There are no dynamic link libraries (DLLs) or shared objects. Instead, there is only one type of function libraries that can be used for both static and dynamic linking. Only the part of the library that is actually used is loaded and linked. The library code is kept contiguous with the main program code in almost all cases. An executable file can be re-linked to update a function library or to adapt the program to a particular hardware configuration, operating system, or user interface framework.

So compiled code is forward compatible with new CPUs with longer vector registers, but it's not forward compatible with new libraries?

I find it a bit sad that people put so much effort into designing new ISAs that have nifty features, but then they make them so different from current ISAs that they basically can't run currently existing software.

Selected Excerpts (with my comments):

"o An instruction can do multiple things, but only if it fits into the pipeline system. There is no need for microcode."

No microcode? Sign me up!

"o The ForwardCom design is scalable to support small embedded systems as well as large supercomputers and vector processors without losing binary compatibility."

Unbelievably forward-thinking!

"o The instruction set is fully orthogonal."

Aesthetically and mathematically pleasing!

"o Array loops are implemented in a new flexible way that automatically uses the maximum vector length supported by the microprocessor in all but the last iteration of a loop. The last iteration automatically uses a vector length that fits the remaining number of elements. No extra code is needed to deal with remaining data and special cases. There is no need to compile the code separately for different microprocessors with different vector lengths."

Utterly brilliant! Genius level intelligence!

Well, what do you expect? Agner Fog is a LEGEND in the assembly language community...

I've only skimmed it, but it smells a lot like Khaled Omar's "IPv10" draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-omar-ipv10-11.