On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> Let's not start throwing up our respective hands in disgust! Nothing's been
> attempted yet. In fact, nothing's been suggested yet except a couple of
> things which at first inspection didn't seem like they'd work. Now, Hans
> Franke suggested something like a KIM-1. There's no reason one couldn't
> code for something LIKE a KIM-1, even the guys working the Z-80 side, but
You want people to have to learn 6502 in order to participate in this?
So, I've never touched a Z80, but conversely you'd want me to have the
added burden of having to learn Z80 assembler if we chose to do this on
the Z80?
I think part of the idea is to implement this exercise on different
processors so that we can all collectively learn how the code to perform
the same algorithm works on the many different varieties.
> it's inappropriate to choose. If one wants the hardware, it should be the
> SAME hardware throughout the exercise, though. That's why I was suggesting
> a simulator. All that's really needed is a run to see if it actually will
Ok, Richard. You go off and write this simulator, and design the board to
run it. Then when you're all done with this masterpiece, the rest of us
will have long been done with this little mental challenge and talking
about something more contemporary, like how two years prior the world
did not in fact end on the January 1, 2000.
> execute and end up with the desired result when code is submitted to the
> hardware. A simulator would be adequate so long as it was trusted to give
> honest timing results. That way, nobody would have to risk burning his
> fingers.
I think counting clock cycles would be a lot simpler, but that's just me,
always trying to find the sensible solution.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar_at_siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See
http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 04/03/99]
Received on Sat Apr 17 1999 - 17:06:43 BST