4 Jan
2006
4 Jan
'06
4:43 p.m.
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 10:20:51 -0800
From: "Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com>
Subject: Re: Speaking of 6502s, was Re: 70's micros still available -
>On 1/4/2006 at 8:10 AM M H Stein wrote:
>Most languages were ported to the PET (although
some were for the 6809
>in the dual-processor SPET):
But a 6809 is nothing like a 6502!
Of course not; I was just pointing out that any search of 6502 software etc.
for the PET will probably include 6809 stuff as well.
If anything, a 6809 is an improved 16-bit version of a
6800.
No "if anything" about it; in the words of the 6809 designers (who had
also been involved in development of the 6800):
"We feel (the 6809) is the best machine so far made by human."
(From a 3-part series starting in Byte Jan '79, detailing the philosophy
and development of the 6809 - wonder if they're suggesting that there
were better machines, presumably made by non-humans? Aliens?
The proverbial infinite number of monkeys?)
In a way, this goes toward the idea of the 6800 having
the more useful
architecture than the 6502.
Arrghh... do we always have to have these discussions about which CPU/
computer/OS/language etc. etc. is better/more useful than xyz?
More useful for what, when, for whom, at what cost, yadda, yadda...?
And how does software being written for a 16-bit 6809 (three years newer
than the 6502) say anything about the relative merits of the even older
6800? I suppose that software being written for the Pentium proves
that an 8080 was better than a Z80?
As a matter of interest, the 6502 was the successor to the 6501,
pin-compatible with the 6800 and not that much different.
The 6809 was substantially different from both of them...
m
4 Jan
4 Jan
6:21 p.m.
On 1/4/2006 at 7:43 PM M H Stein wrote:
Arrghh... do we always have to have these discussions
about which CPU/
computer/OS/language etc. etc. is better/more useful than xyz?
More useful for what, when, for whom, at what cost, yadda, yadda...?
First of all, recall that the original thread of this was "To a Z80/8080/85
programmer, how does a 6502 look?" It appears to me that this discussion
is on topic.
I made the observation earlier in the thread that instruction set appears
to make less of a difference than one might otherwise think.
Of course you can do anything with a one-instruction CPU; even emulate the
hairiest of CISCs. But arguing because you can do this, instruction set
details make no difference, so therefore any discussion of them is
pointless, would be a mistake, I think.
There are instruction sets and architectures that lend themselves to more
straightforward HLL implementations. After all, isn't this the reason that
some have created CPUs that interpret P-codes directly?
Because of its implementation of a fixed-address small stack and lack of
16-bit indexing, I observed that the 6502 looks more like a microcontroller
than does the 6800, yet the 6800 architecture is far more common as a
microcontroller the 6502; and the 6502 was more common in personal computer
applications that the 6800. This would appear to be contrary to
expectations. I'm sure that the cost and availability of the 6502 had a
lot to do with its application in PCs.
And how does software being written for a 16-bit 6809
(three years newer
than the 6502) say anything about the relative merits of the even older
6800? I suppose that software being written for the Pentium proves
that an 8080 was better than a Z80?
Non sequitur. The 6809 was tossed in as a response to my query about what
HLLs have been implemented on the 6502. My response was that the 6809 was
not a 6502, nor was it derived from one; proffering it in a discussion of
6502 software was a red herring. If anything, the 6809 was closer to a
6800 in philosophy.
As a matter of interest, the 6502 was the successor to
the 6501,
pin-compatible with the 6800 and not that much different.
I believe that I'd already observed that much earlier in this thread.
Cheers,
Chuck
6879
days inactive
6879
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
dm561＠torfree.net