3 ms·
There are some cringeworthy aspects to this talk if you know the story. That does not actually distract because it is interesting watching someone tell the stor
by Theodores 12y ago
There are some cringeworthy aspects to this talk if you know the story. That does not actually distract because it is interesting watching someone tell the story when they revere the 6502 yet have not coded for it.
At the time that the 6502 hit the computer scene in a mass-market way it wasn't like you coded your code straight into a computer. Instead you actually wrote code out on paper. Then you looked up the opcodes and typed them into a margin. That was what you typed in on many personal computers of the time. The BBC micro had assembler options that you could drop into on BBC Basic, so, if you wanted to do something really cool then assembly was an option.
This was in the pre-internet era where you might have a few books and plenty of magazines - piles of them, normally, every back issue kept. You could not Google answers and have some SO answer pop up seconds later. You would have to rifle through the indexes on the few books you had. This was not an obstacle to learning, you could actually memorise the whole instruction set and be fairly sure of what the opcodes were. So, in a way, you could be your own Google.
I had exposure to Z80 before 6502, I also had some 6809 and 68000 knowledge. However, if you were new to programming it required quite a conceptual leap to know what an index register could do. Then things like the alternate registers - what do I do with these, please? Hence, the little 6502 was nice and easy. Although there were just the three registers you could master them and do what you needed to do with just that.
To a certain extent the 6502 forced people to build a proper computer without getting the CPU to do things like drive the display (Sinclair). You didn't really have to care about system interrupts for things outside your code plus the performance was pretty good in comparison to those systems that had a Z80 'do everything'.
Although Z80 might be a bit hard as a beginner, 6502 was a bit more manageable. With concepts learned on the 6502 you could go on to the other CPUs with relative ease, e.g. 68000 was easy if you knew 6502.
Going back to the talk, I had it easy - manuals, complete computers you could buy, even dot matrix printers. Plus community in those magazines. The generation before me that actually made the stuff I picked up they were on punched cards and reel-to-reel tapes. I cannot imagine how hard it was for them or the realities of how it was to problem solve given tools available. However, I imagine that leap is similar to the leap required by this speaker to understand the little takeaway here - you could actually program the 6502 without being overwhelmed by the size of the instruction set and, through doing so, get pretty good at it.
- kjs3 12y agoThis is completely wrong, and it's obvious the author is the one who is "cringeworthy". I most certainly "coded your code straight into a computer" back in those days. The Commodore PET and Apple 6502 computers had built in BASIC, in ROM, and assembler environments were easy to find if you had a floppy. The Apple at least had any number of other languages like Pascal and Forth. And the idea that the 68000 was easier if you knew 6502 is laughable.
- Zardoz84 12y agoApple I and ][ Had a machine code monitor on ROM, and on some version had a mini-assembler. Search for Woz's monitor (and take a looks to the assembly code, it's very interesting) But I agree that Theodores's post there is something wrong. Only Sinclair's ZX81/82 abuse of the Z80 to generate the screen. Zx Spectrum's had an ULA chip that handles the screen generation and other stuff, like the cassette interface.
- jonjacky 12y agoNo, he's right. The PET and Apple were second generation 6502 machines - intended to be personal computers. The first 6502 products were evaluation kits like the KIM-1, which only had a keypad and seven segment LEDs for entering and viewing code in hex. Even this was quite an advance over the previous generation like the Altair where you had to enter code by flipping switches. This page has a picture, explains the process and shows some handwritten source code: http://blog.jgc.org/2013/04/how-i-coded-in-1985.html http://blog.jgc.org/2013/04/how-i-coded-in-1985.html (Despite the title, this was more typical of 1976 or so.) It seems awkward, but it was quite workable for embedded controllers, which was the original application that the microprocessor manufacturers had in mind.
- jonjacky 12y agoI see that the original Apple I (not II) provided something similar, except with a full keyboard and video instead of keypad and LEDs. See the screenshot on this page: http://apple2history.org/history/ah02/ http://apple2history.org/history/ah02/
- 12y ago