Carlos Murillo skrev:
>At 03:38 AM 8/16/01 +0100, Iggy wrote:
>>Tony Duell skrev:
>>>Well down the list, though, come some well-known microprocessor assembly
>>>languages. For obvious reasons...
>>
>>Please enlighten an assembly novice as to what reason that might be. Any
>>particular cases to look out for?
>Beware of the CDP1802. It's been long enough that I don't remember the
>exact causes, but in order to CALL/RETURN something you had to
>execute an inordinate number of instructions. I hated it.
If you're referring to the RCA 1802, I'd think Tony would like that one, what
with its flexible registers.
>I liked the 8085 for real time stuff (good self-contained interrupt
>structure). The z80 for mixed lang programming. But the 6800 and
>up were plain elegant and easiest to code. A highly orthogonal
>instruction set. I am still somewhat of an expert in 68hc11 programming :-) .
>The 6502 and the X,Y pointer mechanism, though good for graphics,
>I never liked entirely...
6502 and 6809 are my main points of reference, and I still haven't programmed
those, only looked into manuals. =)
>I could comment on something other than 8-bitters, such as DSPs or
>a couple 32bit uproc's, but that would be too long.
No, please do. As long as it's =>10 years old.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6a.
"But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be
they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including
modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines
or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia."
- Theo de Raadt
Received on Sat Aug 18 2001 - 21:47:36 BST