The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
research.swtch.com
The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
#2>The most amazing part about the whole process is that they got the 6502 right in one try. Quoting On the Edge:
Bil Herd summarizes the situation. “No chip worked the first time,” he states emphatically. “No chip. It took seven or nine revs [revisions], or if someone was real good they would get it in five or six.”
In some ways (and I'm speaking in a general sense) situations like that actually make me more nervous than when I know there's a problem. I get this uneasy "there's no way it really went that smoothly" feeling that can be hard to shake.
Then again, my personality is to approach most things in life iteratively, so that probably plays a part as well. Great read either way.
Re: The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
#3>The most amazing part about the whole process is that they got the 6502 right in one try. Quoting On the Edge: Bil Herd summarizes the situation. “No chip worked the first time,” he states emphatically. “No chip. It took seven or nine revs [revisions], or if someone was real good they would get it in five or six.” In some ways (and I'm speaking in a general sense) situations like that actually make me more nervous t…
That's the sensation of working with someone who's incredibly good.
And, BTW, the 6502 was a work of art. Simple, elegant and fast (even at 1 MHz), it ran rings around the Z-80's you found in more expensive computers of the time. Plus, it was delightful to program.
Re: The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
#4>The most amazing part about the whole process is that they got the 6502 right in one try. Quoting On the Edge: Bil Herd summarizes the situation. “No chip worked the first time,” he states emphatically. “No chip. It took seven or nine revs [revisions], or if someone was real good they would get it in five or six.” In some ways (and I'm speaking in a general sense) situations like that actually make me more nervous t…
That's the sensation of working with someone who's incredibly good. And, BTW, the 6502 was a work of art. Simple, elegant and fast (even at 1 MHz), it ran rings around the Z-80's you found in more expensive computers of the time. Plus, it was delightful to program.
I'm curious why you think so (about the Z80, I mean). I seem to remember it being in very cheap computers as well (ZX Spectrum, doesn't get much cheaper than that) and was a great deal faster. I grew up with a 6502 and love it like a childhood pet but can't see how it 'ran rings' around the Z80.
Re: The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
#5>The most amazing part about the whole process is that they got the 6502 right in one try. Quoting On the Edge: Bil Herd summarizes the situation. “No chip worked the first time,” he states emphatically. “No chip. It took seven or nine revs [revisions], or if someone was real good they would get it in five or six.” In some ways (and I'm speaking in a general sense) situations like that actually make me more nervous t…
That's the sensation of working with someone who's incredibly good. And, BTW, the 6502 was a work of art. Simple, elegant and fast (even at 1 MHz), it ran rings around the Z-80's you found in more expensive computers of the time. Plus, it was delightful to program.
Plus, it was delightful to program.
Simple maybe, but not delightful to program. I don't know of any assembly language that is delightful to program.
BTW, I knew someone from junior high & high school who could write code for the 6502 using a hex dump with amazing speed. You might have heard of him: Randy Linden.
Re: The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the sensation of working with someone who's incredibly good. And, BTW, the 6502 was a work of art. Simple, elegant and fast (even at 1 MHz), it ran rings around the Z-80's you found in more expensive computers of the time. Plus, it was delightful to program.
I'm curious why you think so (about the Z80, I mean). I seem to remember it being in very cheap computers as well (ZX Spectrum, doesn't get much cheaper than that) and was a great deal faster. I grew up with a 6502 and love it like a childhood pet but can't see how it 'ran rings' around the Z80.
I believe the 6502 could do things faster than the Z80. I once implemented the exact same program on a 6800 and a Z80. The 6800 is very close to the 6502. Speed wasn't an issue, but the Z80 version was noticeably bigger. And also felt more quirky to program.
Re: The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious why you think so (about the Z80, I mean). I seem to remember it being in very cheap computers as well (ZX Spectrum, doesn't get much cheaper than that) and was a great deal faster. I grew up with a 6502 and love it like a childhood pet but can't see how it 'ran rings' around the Z80.
I believe the 6502 could do things faster than the Z80. I once implemented the exact same program on a 6800 and a Z80. The 6800 is very close to the 6502. Speed wasn't an issue, but the Z80 version was noticeably bigger. And also felt more quirky to program.
I believe the 6502 could do things faster than the Z80.
Right, I was hoping someone might remember specifics. I don't think this is really true, in general.
The 6800 is very close to the 6502
Not really.
Re: The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the sensation of working with someone who's incredibly good. And, BTW, the 6502 was a work of art. Simple, elegant and fast (even at 1 MHz), it ran rings around the Z-80's you found in more expensive computers of the time. Plus, it was delightful to program.
Plus, it was delightful to program. Simple maybe, but not delightful to program. I don't know of any assembly language that is delightful to program. BTW, I knew someone from junior high & high school who could write code for the 6502 using a hex dump with amazing speed. You might have heard of him: Randy Linden.
Studying the manufacturers data sheet for the chip you could in a short time know everything, and I mean everything, about the instruction set. You would never have any doubt about your programming language. That as least was some form of delight.
Re: The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the sensation of working with someone who's incredibly good. And, BTW, the 6502 was a work of art. Simple, elegant and fast (even at 1 MHz), it ran rings around the Z-80's you found in more expensive computers of the time. Plus, it was delightful to program.
Plus, it was delightful to program. Simple maybe, but not delightful to program. I don't know of any assembly language that is delightful to program. BTW, I knew someone from junior high & high school who could write code for the 6502 using a hex dump with amazing speed. You might have heard of him: Randy Linden.
I've written a lot of ARM assembler, and I think that could be described as a delight to program. An orthogonal instruction set, consistent naming, conditionals on every instruction, and a decent number of registers make it really quite pleasant (as these things go).
These days I'm writing a lot of code in Ruby and JavaScript on the JVM, and find myself considering Java my current equivalent of assembly. It's sad really, being so far away from what the CPU is actually executing.
Re: The MOS 6502 and the Best Layout Guy in the World
#10The CCC congress yielded some great talks this year.