29 Jan
2008
29 Jan
'08
5:08 a.m.
Subject: Re: Z80 Divide by 10
From: Sean Conner <spc at conman.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:35:52 -0500
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
It was thus said that the Great Jim Leonard once stated:
Me? I didn't find it all that odd (at least, once I realized it was
better to look at the opcode map in octal instead of hex), but I do recall
reading various rants against the x86 on USENET in the early to mid 90s. I
did *a lot* of 8086 programming in the late 80s/early 90s, and still like
revisiting it from time to time (well, assembly in general, not specifically
the 8086).
-spc (Man, I think I'd prefer the 6502 over the Z80 any day, and I hate
the 6502 ... )
;) Having programmed a lot of the 8bitters and a fair number of 16 bitters
my favorites are:
PDP11, z80, 8085 and 804x(and 805x) I happen to hate Zilog neumonics for
z80 though as it hides the fact that thre are hole in the instruction set.
It also took me a long time to to switch from octal to hex as octal made
the instruction set clear rather than hiding the holes. But I'm used to
them especially the 8085, z80 and 804x.
Others I find interesting are 6502, 1802, 6809 and TI9900 but I have to
pay atttention as they require a different programming approach than
would z80 or for that fact PDP11. Not better or worse just different.
My all time favorite is PDP-8. Likely the most minimal instruction set
that does enough. It has all the lacks XYZ of most every cpu and you
can still code effectively with it. Also after PDP-8 everything
looks good. ;) The 1802 also falls in that catagory, odd little machine
with not much there but functional programs that are fast for the CPU
speed manage to happen.
There are few micros that do decent math, ti9900 and 6809 are ok at it
but none were designed to be a primary number cruncher. Most code math
routines effectively enough and thats what counts.
If theres a comment here each cpu has something going for it or
PDP8, PDP-11, z80 and 6502 would not have been amoung the longest
lived cpus going. Yet despite that I still loathe the 8088/6 and later
as the worst 8080 enhancement with a bag on the side.
Just my .02$
Allison
> I
find it amazing that there's an instruction set even more annoying
> than
>the 8086 (segments and all). I was amazed at the lopsidedness of the
>instruction set. I'm beginning to think I was lucky in skipping this
>particular chip (my first 8-bit was the 6809, so I think I got spoiled).
Other than the goofy segment layout, what did you find "annoying" about
the 8086 instruction set?