In article <20220422134210.38f9ee33f9ab34571cf511df@eircom.net>, Ahem A
Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:

> > > They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
> > > _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
> >
> > one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
>
> I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
> eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so
> programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't uncommon
> in those circles circa 1980.

it's not 1980 anymore, and he's using the term to mean writing
software, not writing to an eprom.

but even if he is using it to mean writing to an eprom, it would be
*less* relevant, since anyone can press a few buttons to do it.

> Personally I usually talked about burning or
> blowing an eprom.

as did everyone who actually did it, including myself.

>
> Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and
> typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I hadn't
> yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
> assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the eprom
> for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without
> bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.

changing a couple of bytes is not anywhere close to 'coding in hex'.

> It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.

exactly the point.

some people did that 40 years ago, including myself.

almost nobody does that now, nor do they program in assembly.

with very rare exception, compilers can do a *much* better job at
writing assembly than humans can, particularly with modern processors.

In article <t3ubt4$1dch$1@gioia.aioe.org>, alister
<alister.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> > In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
> > <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
> >> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
> >
> > one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
> > storing data, and unlike regular proms, can be erased and rewritten if
> > there are any changes.
> >
> > you're not fooling anyone.
>
> Proms & Eproms are programmed, that is what the 'p' Stands for
> you do it with an (e)prom programmer.

that's true, except that 'arlen' is babbling about programming in
assembly versus high level languages, not burning a prom.

> the data to program (or 'Burn' as it was commonly called) could either be
> uploaded to the programmer via a serial cable or manualy entered via a hex
> keypad. Many earlier experimenters assembled their code by hand & used
> this approach.

they did do that long ago, as did i. certainly not now.

On 4/22/2022 5:42 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 07:56:52 -0400
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <t3tmec$g9c$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
>> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
>>> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
>>
>> one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
>
> I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
> eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so
> programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't uncommon
> in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about burning or
> blowing an eprom.

nospam is wrong of course™.

PROM stands for "Programmable Read Only Memory." The whole purpose of a
PROM is that it's programmable!

There were PROMs, EPROMs (erasable with UV lights) and EEPROMs,
(electrically erasable PROMS). You programmed all of them.

In article <t3ue02$h6h$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> There were PROMs, EPROMs (erasable with UV lights) and EEPROMs,
> (electrically erasable PROMS). You programmed all of them.

context matters.

arlen was babbling about programming in assembly versus high level
languages.

In comp.sys.raspberry-pi nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> one does not 'code in hex'

O RLY? Try telling that to Steve Wozniak, who didn't have access to an
assembler when he created the Apple I's firmware. He "hand-assembled" the
code on paper, and I suspect that all but the smallest part of it would've
been punched in as a string of hex codes.

Tell us, what does this bit of code do?

0300- A2 00 BD 0E 03 F0 06 20
0308- ED FD E8 D0 F5 60 C8 C5
0310- CC CC CF A0 D7 CF D2 CC
0318- C4 8D 00

(I'll cop to having used the mini-assembler to create this, but if you
change the dashes in the listing above to colons, you could key in this hex
dump and run it...on the right hardware. :) )

> and eproms are not programmed. they are for storing data

....and the process by which data is stored in an EPROM is called what? The
device that does it is called what?

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=eprom+programmer

Your pedantry wouldn't be so annoying if it weren't so blatantly incorrect.

--
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

In article <rlA8K.624027$LN2.18909@fx13.iad>,
<scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:

> > one does not 'code in hex'
>
> O RLY? Try telling that to Steve Wozniak, who didn't have access to an
> assembler when he created the Apple I's firmware.

that was 50 years ago.

nobody does that now. clearer??

>
> > and eproms are not programmed. they are for storing data
>
> ...and the process by which data is stored in an EPROM is called what? The
> device that does it is called what?

context matters.

'arlen' was babbling about writing programs.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> I don't know Swift - but one thing that can be done in high level
> languages that cannot be done in assembler is create large, portable,
> maintainable pieces of software, even OS kernels are mostly too large and
> complex to be written in assembler and have been for decades.

Yes. Of course. It's also "readable" and "easier to learn" and a whole bunch
of other things which are why very few people code using assembly languages.

However, my point to nospam is still valid that all these languages are
designed to do essentially the same things, each using different syntax.

I learned my first computer languages in the sixties, and while the syntax
has changed over time, fundamental concepts have not - which was my point.

Which is why learning new syntax bores me. But I'm sure that excites others.
And that's OK.

It's nospam, not me, who was disagreeing with those basic principles.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

>>> They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
>>> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
>>
>> one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
>
> I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
> eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so
> programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't uncommon
> in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about burning or
> blowing an eprom.
>
> Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and
> typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I hadn't
> yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
> assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the eprom
> for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without
> bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.
> It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.

I just went into the basement to search for my old 68701 MPU wire-wrapped
board, but I haven't found it - although here are some of my "parts" bins.
<https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had

Resistors, diodes, caps, xtors, bridges, 7400 TTL ICs, fuses, pots, etc.

To Ahem A Rivet's astute observations and recollection of his experience, if
I can find my old hand-twisted wire-wrapped 68701 circuits from the 80s,
I'll post a picture since my credibility is my greatest asset.

As I recall, I would read the SAMS guides (from Radio Shack?) for the
Motorola 68701, which has an onboard EEPROM, and then I'd write the code by
hand, generally resorting to hex (as you did) simply because of _how_ it's
programmed into the 68701.

I'd pop the 40-pin MPU out of the ZIF socket of the wire-wrapped board and
then I'd place it into the EEPROM programmer which would burn it in.

You had to eventually feed it the hex code so you learned that a LDA (load
accumulator A) was a certain hex code and _that_ is what you wrote your
programs in (since you had to do the translation to hex anyway).

It appears this nospam, who, let's be clear, has a low IQ and no education,
doesn't realize that's how it was done with EEPROMS in the olden days.

Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
--
Usenet is where kind-hearted people daily gather to voluntarily help others.
Usenet is where friendly people daily gather to discuss topics of interest.

On 2022-04-22 11:52 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>>>> They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
>>>> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
>>>
>>> one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
>>
>>     I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
>> eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom Programmer" so
>> programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't
>> uncommon
>> in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about burning or
>> blowing an eprom.
>>
>>     Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and
>> typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I
>> hadn't
>> yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
>> assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the
>> eprom
>> for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without
>> bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.
>> It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
>
> I just went into the basement to search for my old 68701 MPU wire-wrapped
> board, but I haven't found it - although here are some of my "parts" bins.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
>
> Resistors, diodes, caps, xtors, bridges, 7400 TTL ICs, fuses, pots, etc.

Oh, my!

>
> To Ahem A Rivet's astute observations and recollection of his
> experience, if
> I can find my old hand-twisted wire-wrapped 68701 circuits from the 80s,
> I'll post a picture since my credibility is my greatest asset.

Then you, sir...

....are broke.

In article <t3uth2$1361$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.

be sure to pose it with some textbooks.

> BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?

not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
cool device.

now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
sd cards.

nospam wrote:

> it's not 1980 anymore, and he's using the term to mean writing
> software, not writing to an eprom.

It's clear that it's you, nospam, who has never designed microcontroller
boards, where in the 80's, that's what I did, and I used these parts then:
<https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had

Some _books_ I used to learn about design of microcontrollers are thus.
<https://i.postimg.cc/s2SGzC8H/books07.jpg> Biomedical instrument design

The fact you have both a low IQ & lack of any education is apparent, nospam.

> but even if he is using it to mean writing to an eprom, it would be
> *less* relevant, since anyone can press a few buttons to do it.

I don't think you have the adult comprehensive skills to realize that we're
talking about the early days of microcontrollers, nospam.

You did _everything_ by hand in those days, including hex coding.

>> Personally I usually talked about burning or
>> blowing an eprom.
>
> as did everyone who actually did it, including myself.

I doubt it based on the fact you don't know a thing about coding in hex.

>> Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled it and
>> typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because I hadn't
>> yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
>> assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed the eprom
>> for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex without
>> bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes change.
>
> changing a couple of bytes is not anywhere close to 'coding in hex'.

You're an idiot, nospam.

In those days, you wrote the _entire_ program in hex.

a. You _designed_ the "motherboard" (although we didn't call it that)
b. You populated it with ZIF sockets or wire-wrapped components
c. And you programmed the EEPROM yourself to test the code

We didn't use "assemblers" in those days (although later masm, dasm, wasm,
and chasm were used when we finally had a PC to play with years later).

It's how it was done.
That you don't know this is an indication of your lack of education.
>> It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
>
> exactly the point.

In those days, we cut open a commodore 64 white plastic cartridge (as I
recall) and programmed it also, where I have that somewhere in my garage.

You, nospam, have _never_ done _any_ of this (it's easy to tell).
Your lack of education is readily apparently to all.

> some people did that 40 years ago, including myself.

You did not. You don't know the first thing about it, nospam.
You're a poser.

> almost nobody does that now, nor do they program in assembly.

While that's true, it doesn't mean it wasn't done that way long ago.
That you never did it is obvious to all, nospam.

> with very rare exception, compilers can do a *much* better job at
> writing assembly than humans can, particularly with modern processors.

One of my best friends made zillions in the early days of Google, writing
compilers, and he claims that his compiled results are more efficient than
hand coding - where the guy is a genius (unlike you, nospam), so it may very
well be the case.

He even gave me, gratis, this rasperry pi & all the necessary transducers!
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKFCmNWC/pi01.jpg> Raspberry Pi and associated parts
<https://i.postimg.cc/zfbhdcxg/pi02.jpg> Pi and associated transducers

Maybe I'll ask this newsgroup, in a separate thread, for advice on using it.
--
Usenet is where kind-hearted people daily gather to voluntarily help others.

nospam wrote:

>> There were PROMs, EPROMs (erasable with UV lights) and EEPROMs,
>> (electrically erasable PROMS). You programmed all of them.
>
> context matters.
>
> arlen was babbling about programming in assembly versus high level
> languages.

Only to you ill-educated ignorant iKooks is "assembly" and "hex" babble.
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKFCmNWC/pi01.jpg>

On 2022-04-21, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> sms wrote:
>
>> Lewis is wrong of course.
>
> The folks on the c.s.r.p group may not be familiar with the iKooks, where
> all the iKooks have the _same_ response in _any_ topic that purports to
> mention the lack of basic functionality of their beloved product line.
>
> In this case, it's FM radio - where they claim that it exists in another
> form, and that nobody wants it anyway, and that most phones don't have it,
> etc., all of which are always wrong since most phones _do_ have it.
>
> Just not iPhones.

It's a basic marketing principle, pushed by marketroids (and adopted as
an article of faith by J. Random Luser) since long before Apple existed:

"If we don't have it, you don't need it."

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On 4/22/2022 12:23 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

<snip>

> It's a basic marketing principle, pushed by marketroids (and adopted as
> an article of faith by J. Random Luser) since long before Apple existed:
>
> "If we don't have it, you don't need it."

Or "we used to have it but we got rid of it and even if you used it you
really don't need it anymore and it was an act of courage for us to take
it away." See <https://www.google.com/search?q=courage+3.5mm>.

On 2022-04-22, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <t3uth2$1361$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
><spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
>
> be sure to pose it with some textbooks.
>
>> BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
>
> not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
> cool device.
>
> now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
> sd cards.

....but no old, crufty books? No sale!

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

nospam wrote:

>> Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
>
> be sure to pose it with some textbooks.

The fact you completely lack education is why you deprecate textbooks.
You always brazenly fabricate everything you claim.

>> BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
>
> not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
> cool device.

I doubt you have one nospam since you brazenly fabricate everything.
Let's see a picture of that wire-wrap gun, nospam, next to your iPhone.

Since my credibility is an asset, here's my _hand_ wire-wrap tool.
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QkQrDBb/parts03.jpg>

And yes, you know that's my iPad since it's asking me to log in again:
<https://i.postimg.cc/zDMxn7hb/parts02.jpg>

BTW, you deprecated my vacuum-tube experience, but do you have _any_ idea
what that I/F injection tool is used for nospam?

I didn't think so.
You _fabricated_ everything you claimed, nospam.

Every word from you is a brazen fabrication which you _never_ back up.

> now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
> sd cards.

I don't believe a word you say nospam because you fabricate everything.

BTW, here's _my_ rasperry pi and the transducers to go along with it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/zfbhdcxg/pi02.jpg> Pi and associated transducers

And to prove it's mine, here's a shot of it next to my iPad.
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKFCmNWC/pi01.jpg> Raspberry Pi and associated parts

The difference between you and me is I don't fabricate my education.
You do.

Let's see a _single_ shot of your proof nospam.
Show us just one!

Show us your wire-wrapping gun next to your iPhone nospam.
Back up your brazen fabrications of imaginary experience for once.

On 2022-04-22 1:14 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>> Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
>>
>> be sure to pose it with some textbooks.
>
> The fact you completely lack education is why you deprecate textbooks.

Not at all.

What we all see is that pictures of textbooks prove nothing about
education in a subject.

>>> BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
>>
>> not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
>> cool device.
>
> I doubt you have one nospam since you brazenly fabricate everything.
> Let's see a picture of that wire-wrap gun, nospam, next to your iPhone.

You mean the way your pictures are always posed next to your phone...

....right?

>
> Since my credibility is an asset, here's my _hand_ wire-wrap tool.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/6QkQrDBb/parts03.jpg>

But it's not next to your phone...

>
> And yes, you know that's my iPad since it's asking me to log in again:
> <https://i.postimg.cc/zDMxn7hb/parts02.jpg>

Which you don't have to do if you don't wish to.

>
> BTW, you deprecated my vacuum-tube experience, but do you have _any_ idea
> what that I/F injection tool is used for nospam?
>
> I didn't think so.
> You _fabricated_ everything you claimed, nospam.
>
> Every word from you is a brazen fabrication which you _never_ back up.
>
>> now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
>> sd cards.
>
> I don't believe a word you say nospam because you fabricate everything.
>
> BTW, here's _my_ rasperry pi and the transducers to go along with it.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/zfbhdcxg/pi02.jpg> Pi and associated transducers
>
> And to prove it's mine, here's a shot of it next to my iPad.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/CKFCmNWC/pi01.jpg> Raspberry Pi and associated parts
>
> The difference between you and me is I don't fabricate my education.

You certainly don't prove it...

> You do.
>
> Let's see a _single_ shot of your proof nospam.
> Show us just one!

Right after you.

Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2022-04-22, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <t3uth2$1361$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
>> <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
>>
>> be sure to pose it with some textbooks.
>>
>>> BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
>>
>> not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
>> cool device.
>>
>> now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
>> sd cards.
>
> ...but no old, crufty books? No sale!
>

Ahahahahaha. That's a definite requirement for all intelligent,
highly educated adults on this group.

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> now i have a bunch of raspberry pis, various hats and a bunch of micro
>> sd cards.
>
> ...but no old, crufty books? No sale!

None of the iKooks has _any_ education; so they deprecate the vast knowledge
gleaned by having higher degrees in the very stuff they fabricate they know.

And yet... never once do the iKooks _ever_ back up any of their claims.
They just pretend.

At least I back up my claims - and yet - they never do. Because they can't.

<https://i.postimg.cc/CKFCmNWC/pi01.jpg> Raspberry Pi and associated parts
<https://i.postimg.cc/zfbhdcxg/pi02.jpg> Pi and associated transducers
<https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
<https://i.postimg.cc/zDMxn7hb/parts02.jpg> EPROM & wire-wrap tool
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QkQrDBb/parts03.jpg> 7400 TTL ICs & testing tools

alister wrote:

>>> They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if anyone has
>>> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex coding.
>>
>> one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they are for
>> storing data, and unlike regular proms, can be erased and rewritten if
>> there are any changes.
>>
>> you're not fooling anyone.
>
> Proms & Eproms are programmed, that is what the 'p' Stands for
> you do it with an (e)prom programmer.
> the data to program (or 'Burn' as it was commonly called) could either be
> uploaded to the programmer via a serial cable or manualy entered via a hex
> keypad. Many earlier experimenters assembled their code by hand & used
> this approach.

A nice change from the Apple newsgroups is that the pi people don't fall for
the brazen fabrications that the iKooks claim, where the iKooks' self-esteem
is in the toilet (rightly so), so they have to _fabricate_ imaginary
education (which all of them sorely lack).

I remember an EPROM programmer box, about the size of a dictionary in those
days which was, whitish, cream colored, as I recall, with a really nice ZIF
socket and a spring-loaded lever and a keypad (as I recall) as you noted.

I wrote in hex.
I thought in hex.
I programmed in hex.

Those who have done it _understand_ what I say, and here are just some of
the tools and parts I used back in the 80's to do that (I went into the
basement to dig these out but I didn't find my commodore 64 with the hole
cut in the plastic where we programmed it to use the TI speech synthesizer
and IR transducers that were all the rage in those days at Radio Shack.

The point of these ad hoc photos is merely to back up my claims (which, the
adults on this ng will note that the iKooks never back up their claims).
<https://i.postimg.cc/CKFCmNWC/pi01.jpg> Raspberry Pi and associated parts
<https://i.postimg.cc/zfbhdcxg/pi02.jpg> Pi and associated transducers
<https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
<https://i.postimg.cc/zDMxn7hb/parts02.jpg> EPROM & wire-wrap tool
<https://i.postimg.cc/6QkQrDBb/parts03.jpg> 7400 TTL ICs & testing tools

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> I remember an EPROM programmer box, about the size of a dictionary in those
> days which was, whitish, cream colored, as I recall, with a really nice ZIF
> socket and a spring-loaded lever and a keypad (as I recall) as you noted.

Actually, it was blue! I'm slowly remembering it. The Commodore 64 cartridge
was the whitish cream color (with vents, as I recall).

It was a long time ago...

But the basics are what we learned by designing our own microcontroller
boards. These are the basics that the iKooks _pretend_ they know (but
don't).

An obvious fact that they never did it is that everyone who has done it
knows you wrote in hex and programmed the EEPROM in hex; yet they don't.

They even ridiculed what was, in effect, what everyone did in those days.
That's how you know they completely lack the education they pretend to have.

nospam wrote:

>> the data to program (or 'Burn' as it was commonly called) could either be
>> uploaded to the programmer via a serial cable or manualy entered via a hex
>> keypad. Many earlier experimenters assembled their code by hand & used
>> this approach.
>
> they did do that long ago, as did i. certainly not now.

You've never done anything of the sort nospam.

All you iKooks fabricate everything.

None of you owns any respect for your own credibility.

It's how I know you are ignorant and ill educated.

You don't even care that nothing you claim is true.

Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>>>> They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if
>>>> anyone has
>>>> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex
>>>> coding.
>>>
>>> one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they
>>> are for
>>
>>     I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code into
>> eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom
>> Programmer" so
>> programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that wasn't
>> uncommon
>> in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about
>> burning or
>> blowing an eprom.
>>
>>     Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand assembled
>> it and
>> typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer because
>> I hadn't
>> yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table driven
>> assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and needed
>> the eprom
>> for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex
>> without
>> bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes
>> change.
>> It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
>
> I just went into the basement to search for my old 68701 MPU
> wire-wrapped
> board, but I haven't found it - although here are some of my
> "parts" bins.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
>
> Resistors, diodes, caps, xtors, bridges, 7400 TTL ICs, fuses, pots,
> etc.
>
> To Ahem A Rivet's astute observations and recollection of his
> experience, if
> I can find my old hand-twisted wire-wrapped 68701 circuits from the
> 80s,
> I'll post a picture since my credibility is my greatest asset.
>
> As I recall, I would read the SAMS guides (from Radio Shack?) for the
> Motorola 68701, which has an onboard EEPROM, and then I'd write the
> code by
> hand, generally resorting to hex (as you did) simply because of
> _how_ it's
> programmed into the 68701.
>
> I'd pop the 40-pin MPU out of the ZIF socket of the wire-wrapped
> board and
> then I'd place it into the EEPROM programmer which would burn it in.
> You had to eventually feed it the hex code so you learned that a
> LDA (load
> accumulator A) was a certain hex code and _that_ is what you wrote
> your
> programs in (since you had to do the translation to hex anyway).
>
> It appears this nospam, who, let's be clear, has a low IQ and no
> education,
> doesn't realize that's how it was done with EEPROMS in the olden days.
>
> Again, if I can find the old board I wire wrapped, I'll snap a photo.
> BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?

Msn, nobody has such fine parts bins. Most folks probably don't
have *ANY* 7400 series TTL. Only us OLD guys.

YOU ROCK!

PS: That pic would be even better if you propped a few vacuum tube
data books next to your part bins. I recommend the GE tube manual.
Books really do show how adult you are.

Alan wrote:
> On 2022-04-22 11:52 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>
>>>>> They even ridiculed the concept of writing in hex, where, if
>>>>> anyone has
>>>>> _ever_ programmed EPROMs like I have, you get good at rote hex
>>>>> coding.
>>>>
>>>> one does not 'code in hex' and eproms are not programmed. they
>>>> are for
>>>
>>>     I hate to disillusion you but when I was putting my code
>>> into
>>> eproms the device we used to do so was called an "Eprom
>>> Programmer" so
>>> programming an eprom is pretty reasonable terminology that
>>> wasn't uncommon
>>> in those circles circa 1980. Personally I usually talked about
>>> burning or
>>> blowing an eprom.
>>>
>>>     Furthermore I have written code in assembler, hand
>>> assembled it and
>>> typed the resulting hex directly into an eprom programmer
>>> because I hadn't
>>> yet written the assembler (well actually tables for the table
>>> driven
>>> assembler/disassembler I'd written) for that processor and
>>> needed the eprom
>>> for testing. I have also patched eproms with directly typed hex
>>> without
>>> bothering to assemble the corrected source for a couple of bytes
>>> change.
>>> It's been a *long* time since I've done any of those things.
>>
>> I just went into the basement to search for my old 68701 MPU
>> wire-wrapped
>> board, but I haven't found it - although here are some of my
>> "parts" bins.
>> <https://i.postimg.cc/j2pJbkpw/parts01.jpg> Parts bins everyone had
>>
>> Resistors, diodes, caps, xtors, bridges, 7400 TTL ICs, fuses,
>> pots, etc.
>
> Oh, my!
>
>>
>> To Ahem A Rivet's astute observations and recollection of his
>> experience, if
>> I can find my old hand-twisted wire-wrapped 68701 circuits from
>> the 80s,
>> I'll post a picture since my credibility is my greatest asset.
>
> Then you, sir...
>
> ...are broke.

It's worse than that. He can't find his ass with both hands, much
less a half century old wire wrap board.

In article <t3v2a3$15nl$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Andy Burnelli
<spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> >> BTW, did you also have a set of well-stocked parts bins like I do?
> >
> > not anymore, although i might still have the wire wrap gun. that was a
> > cool device.
>
> I doubt you have one nospam since you brazenly fabricate everything.
> Let's see a picture of that wire-wrap gun, nospam, next to your iPhone.

i definitely have one. it's in a box somewhere in storage and i'm not
going to bother digging it out for a troll.

> Since my credibility is an asset, here's my _hand_ wire-wrap tool.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/6QkQrDBb/parts03.jpg>

i had one of those too.

eventually, i got a wire wrap gun, which was a lot more fun.

> BTW, you deprecated my vacuum-tube experience, but do you have _any_ idea
> what that I/F injection tool is used for nospam?

yes.