On 03/30/2019 01:16 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote: > If you already have 4-bit or 8-bit software which already does most of > the job, or if you have engineers who already have deep skills only > with those old processors, that might justify using old cores. > > As a programmer who has dealt with 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit > processors, I can tell you that each step helped. The only negative > of the larger systems is that they invited software bloat, and that > bloat really could be a drag on productivity. OK, there is also > hardware bloat: there usually were more complex mechanisms to > actually get to the pins.
When you're cranking out millions of chips, real estate is a significant factor. With custom chips, the number of CPU pins is independent of how many leads leave the package. The chip is just a black box, with whatever CPU in it. There are still things for which 4 bits is sufficient. > Some of us cut our teeth programming on these things. Usually in > assembly language. Many of us fall in love with the first system we > deeply understood. So there is a generation of defenders of the z80 > (and the 6502). This is nostalgia: they are indefensible for new > designs. My first CPU was the 8080, in my IMSAI 8080. I used to code directly into octal, on square ruled paper. ;) I then moved my coding skills to Data General Nova 800, followed by 6502 & 6809, the latter two for courses at Ryerson, the Nova at work. --- Talk Mailing List [email protected] https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
