Yes, fixed-length instructions are easier to decode, but that also means a hard upper limit on the number of instructions that could ever be supported. Which is obviously a problem for a future-proof architecture.
replyThe rationale for this and also for confining the base set to 32 bit is explained here: https://docs.riscv.org/reference/isa/v20250508/unpriv/extend...
I've read that rationale, and it's, well, I'm not going to say it's lying, but it's insincere. By the time it was written, they already settled on 16-bit alignment, and fetching (and then decoding) 16-bit aligned 32-bit instructions is either inefficient, or hard, or requires extra circuitry (or an instruction cache).
replyHigh performance RISC-V chips exist from Rivos, Ventana and others, and high performance variable length chips also exist in general (AMD, Intel). So in actual reality it increases complexity somewhat, but is not a problem.
replysighs This kind of discussion is so annoying... I start with "RISC-V's decision to make 32-bit instructions only 16-bit aligned complicates instruction fetch and decoding", and the response is "For high performance RISC-V implementations, it's a trivial matter" (which is true), I response with "But then why even bother with mostly-fixed-but-not-quite instruction length, just make a properly variable length ISA, it'd even simplify the instructions", and the reply is "the low-end implementations would struggle with decoding that efficiently" — but they already struggle with instruction fetch when they implement C extension! Nah, it's fine, the high-end chips can cope with that.
replyAnd round and around this discussion goes... Apparently, RISC-V has no downsides at any end of the price spectrum, what a marvelous ISA.