Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc7!ln63wzb From: ln63wzb@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU (Greg Robbins ) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: Re: 65C816 programming weirdness; is it true? Message-ID: <853@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU> Date: Wed, 14-Jan-87 17:31:33 EST Article-I.D.: sdcc7.853 Posted: Wed Jan 14 17:31:33 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 15-Jan-87 05:06:56 EST References: <2515@ecsvax.UUCP> <1226@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> Reply-To: ln63wzb@sdcc7.ucsd.edu.UUCP (Greg Robbins (TA)) Organization: U.C. San Diego Lines: 40 In article <1226@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> daveh@cbmvax.cbm.UUCP (Dave Haynie) writes: >But there certainly are more 68000 >mnemonics, and many of them would be new to a 65XX programmer, who'd >have little trouble upgrading to a 65816. I think the 808X would be >very hard for the average 65XX programmer to pick up, since it does >things so differently. > >Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh I had to learn the 8086 last spring, then the 65816 last summer. I preferred the quirks of the '816 to those of the 8086 only because of prior familiarity with the 6502; going in cold, the '816 certainly doesn't offer significant advantages in ease of use over the 8086. In fact, it's kind of annoying to have to put up with the '816's quirks when the chip lacks the "power instructions" we expect in the latest, plushest microprocessors. The 8086 is, flexibility wise, in a class above the newer '816. What about the future, I wonder? Though Mensch/Western Design Center has announced plans for a 32-bit version of the 658XX, who really wants it? Unless you espouse orthogonality as a religion, and design your simplest processors from the start to be powerful machines temporarily hadicapped, trying to keep a family going for several generations for compatibility's sake gets real messy and unpleasant. I've heard little praise heaped upon the elegance of the 80X86 family design, for despite a noble heritage, it has hardly evolved into the programmer's dream machine of today. Apple still proclaims Apple II forever. I love the old machine, but it is old; most of the die hard Apple II programmers have gone on to the Mac. The IIgs seems more like the last gasp of a dying machine than a modern, competitive computer. Let's keep II emulation alive in our machines forever, but not pretend that it should be the core of future of personal computers. Grobbins ln63wzb@sdcc18.ucsd.edu ...sdcsvax!sdcc7!ln63wzb