TTL computing

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Sat Apr 13 11:08:13 2002

I'd say they're pretty practical for shallow stacks. However, when one is
exploring the realm of stack-driven architectures, you need a pretty deep one.
Admittedly, I completely spaced the shift register approach to stacks, but
that was because the deepest stack I'd ever seen with shift registers was
about 2K deep. That was an old-timer, though. It used a bunch of 2513 shift
registers (in TO-5 cans) on a board dedicated to that purpose.

see below, plz.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Franchuk" <bfranchuk_at_jetnet.ab.ca>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: TTL computing


> Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> (computer science stuff)
> > I told it was a semantic quagmire.
> I really don't care what it was called.
>
> > > Of course you can build a stack without a counter. In the real world a
> > > shift register will do it (I've used a row of 'F194s to make a
subroutine
> > > stack). Or a pile of bits of paper with numbers written on them :-). You
> > > do not have to make a stack (particulary not in the 'theoretical world')
> > > using a counter
> > >
> > Oh forgive me for trying to be practical. It takes a LOT of shift
registers
> > to build what you can build with an up/down counter and a RAM.
>
> Shift register stacks do have the advantage of being fast. Did not the
> 8008 or the 4004 use a 8 level stack for subroutine calls. A calculator
> chip at that time only needed 4 functions.
>
That seems reasonable, but in what time-frame are you thinking?
> --
> Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
> www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 13 2002 - 11:08:13 BST