[vcf-midatlantic] assembler is tedious (was WooHoo!) (Jeffrey Jonas)

Adam Michlin amichlin at swerlin.com
Mon Aug 7 14:14:21 EDT 2017

My use of quotes was intended to show that I didn't agree with the word 
real, although I understand it was an attitude of the time.

I favor one assembly for educating students foreign to assembly language 
over the other merely because some are more beginner friendly.

Like it or not, emulators are going to become more and more a part of 
our hobby. How else I can get a classroom of students working on an 
Apple II? And then get 10 other teachers doing the same in their classroom?

Best wishes,


On 8/7/2017 1:15 PM, Herb Johnson via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
> Adam Michlin had a lot to say. It's pretty much reasonable, plausible 
> stuff he has to say. But I have a few nagging comments.
> I don't care for his use of a distinction between "real" programmers 
> (his quotes), versus whatever-the-hell we do, we who post here, as 
> less than real. I see his point, I have a BSEE myself. But I don't 
> care for that ordering, or the choice of word. This is a discussion 
> list about vintage computers; modern work is second, that's the order.
> And I don't care to hear, what amounts to "assembly languages - learn 
> one, learn them all". And emulators, while free and convenient, aren't 
> quite the same as actual hardware sitting on your desk, or in a rack.
> He's welcome to his preferences and priorities of course. But then - 
> if he clearly favors one processor or architecture over another - why 
> then claim any assembly language is like all others? It is...but it 
> isn't.
> I get his points, there was no insult intended. But it makes me 
> cringe. Like a Civil War re-enactor cringes, when visitors ask them 
> about Web sites, cell-phone reception, keeping cool in the summer, etc.
> About "reality". I spent my time last week, as follows. Disassembling 
> COSMAC 1802 code to restore source for an RCA monitor program. I 
> looked at and discussed, oddball Z80 and 8080 architectures, for 
> programming to SPI or I2C devices. I explained the repair of a 1979 
> S-100 bus backplane and just scanned its manual last night.
> Please don't tell me, what I'm doing, isn't "real". That knowledge of 
> and experience with architectural features are arbitrary details, 
> readily learned, readily emulated. And don't do so, when some of these 
> differences matter to YOU. No insult to you, just consider the larger 
> contexts, as I've suggested.
> keepin' it real
> retrotechnology.com

More information about the vcf-midatlantic mailing list