3 ms·
No, they built it, but the microcode had enough bugs it wasn't viable as more than a proof of concept, and it was also a part of the brand new and very exciting
by hga 11y ago
No, they built it, but the microcode had enough bugs it wasn't viable as more than a proof of concept, and it was also a part of the brand new and very exciting Mead & Conway revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead_%26_Conway_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead_%26_Conway_revolution).
After that the MIT Scheme community concentrated on producing a good version of the language for the 68000, which of course developed an ecosystem a homegrown chip could never hope to achieve back then. This was to support Sussman's work, including SICP/6.001 (Steele went to CMU "to bring the light to the heathen" :-).
- nickpsecurity 11y agoAh, thanks for the Mead & Conway revolution link. That fills a gap in the hardware and EDA research I've been doing: the how of the transition from discrete to custom chips. So, they practically invented VLSI methodology and MOSIS service? That's pretty awesome. Back to Scheme. Ok, so they built it but it was a buggy, throw-away, proof-of-concept. I'll try to remember that in future references. Then they transitioned to software and SICP. Ok, a working Scheme chip would've been neat for me but I concede they made the right call for the time. Plus, it's better to work out a concept and how it will be used before trying to put it into silicon. Lets you decide which parts are really worth putting in hardware. "Steele went to CMU "to bring the light to the heathen" Haha. That's funny. Guess that's my job now. Appreciate your clarifications on the Scheme chip and its context.