Re: 65020 CPU? Look this...

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Ranando King wrote:
> I understand and agree with your objection... to a point.
>
> The IIgs is indeed a model-T with a hotrod engine. That is one of its
> appeals. As for what I was saying before, consider this:
>
> Programming the IIgs is more complicated than programming the older IIs
> because of all the efforts to keep things backwards compatible with the II
> series. While that's more of a benefit than a hinderance, it's not what I
> was talking about. I mean to keep the programming simplicity of the 8-bit II
> series, if not improve on it by making some things even more simple. I by no
> means miss the limitations of the II series, just as I don't miss dealing
> with 16bit DOS.
>
> I miss the simple "disconnect everything except the monitor and power, and
> you can still use it" interface. I miss the built in monitor that allowed
> you to code an entire OS without the need for an existing OS. I miss being
> able to do in 256 bytes of assembly what takes 256 kilobytes on a PC. These
> are the things that I considered to be the essence of Apple II programming.
> This is what I meant by Apple II-like.
>
> I was thinking that a 32bit version of the 6502 would include a single
> instruction for switching the address mode back & forth between 16 & 32 bit
> and the register mode back & forth between 8 & 16 bit. This command would be
> setting/clearing bits in an extended status register area. That way the
> program would be able to look at all of memory as either 1 big flat space or
> as a set of 65,535 swapable 64K blocks. A 3rd bit could be used for II-like
> I/O if desired, but emulating the II would be a mere bonus. That would mean
> a 4th bit would have to control speed if real II hardware was to be used.
> The last 64K block is where I'd put the peripheral I/O and ROM in
> non-emulation mode.

I understand where you are coming from, and I respect your opinion.

My point is that the finely crafted code you and I both so admire
using, reading, and writing, becomes a "waste of programmer's time"
on a machine that has just an order of magnitude more speed and linear
RAM.

When you don't have much speed and space, you always wish that you
had more; but if you get it, all hell breaks loose--in the form
of lost discipline.

In the area of programming craft, we have seen that high speed and
large space result in the widespread proliferation of:

-sloppy algorithms,
-sloppy compilers,
-sloppy libraries,
-sloppy interfaces, and, ultimately,
-sloppy programmers.

I still adhere to the principles of economy and synergy that guided
Woz and so many other great designers.  I find that there is such
a thing as _too much_ memory and speed for one's programming integrity.

-michael

New Applesoft BASIC interface for NadaNet networking!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/