Despite using only 1.5 major opcodes "this is by far the largest RISC-V extension". The end result may be a "design by committee", a relatively complex beast, though there is a simpler subset for small micro-controllers. Is there any truth in this?
The problem is "vector" is an entire category of architecture-style and machine designs; it's not a problem domain. So some people want vector for their very narrow domain (ML? IOT?), and other people want vector for some other narrow domain (HPC? media?), and other people want it for "general-purpose" compute (whatever that means).
Hard questions: what data types do you support? Do you support mixed-types? Do you support expanding operations (64x64=128?)? Do you support reductions? How do you support conditional/branching execution? How do you support interrupts/exceptions? Do you support register file reconfigurations? How do you do function calls? Context switches?
Looking at the evolution of Intel's SIMD ISAs, they started from small 64-bit integer-only multimedia stuff (MMX), and are now at AVX's 512b masked execution with scatter/gatters and exponentials and reciprocals... there's a lot of complexity you can add to a vector ISA. :0
RISC-V wants to go beyond AVX, on several dimensions (parameterized hardware, generic code base, low-end to high-end hardware, symmetry with scalar RISC-V instructions). So if this proposal succeeds in delivering an outline of the final extension (the concepts to iterate and improve on), that would be a milestone worth celebrating (not doubt as I did ;).
