3 ms·
Assembler programming wasn't an unusually exotic skill in the early 70s, and the PDP-10 was an unusually friendly environment for it. Compared to modern progra
by TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
Assembler programming wasn't an unusually exotic skill in the early 70s, and the PDP-10 was an unusually friendly environment for it.
Compared to modern programming, assembler on a 16- or 36-bit machine is simple, logical, and not at all abstract. DEC made a point of offering high quality detailed docs to students, and there was a kind of assembler culture that produced operating systems like TOPS-10, compilers for various languages, and editing tools, often with access to the sources.
And as others have pointed out, the 8080 was not a complex processor. So mapping its instructions to macros wasn't hugely challenging.
I had a friend who wrote a Z80 emulator - a harder challenge - on a PDP-10 as a spare time hobby project. It took about a month of after-hours programming. Full-time, it would have taken much less.
More interesting is that it's possible Gates & Allen had access to the sources for the PDP-11 4K word Dartmouth BASIC.
I have no idea if the original 8-bit MS-BASIC was a clean room reimplementation. But it's at least possible it wasn't.
- RetroTechie 3y ago> Assembler programming wasn't an unusually exotic skill in the early 70s ^^^ This. Back in the 80s I wrote a 8051 assembler running on a Z80 system. This involves a parser, and also a bunch of tables with opcodes, operand formats & so on. Took a number of weeks parttime (not sure if I ever completed it, but the bulk of the functionality was there iirc). This was using just text editor, Z80 assembler, maybe a debugger, and 8051 family datasheet(s). Apart from emulating I/O (as simple or complex as that in emulated machine), difficulty-wise this should be similar to writing an emulator. 8051 and 8080 are not very different in complexity.