It's been a while since I posted on the forum. Let me tell you why!

After making the '816 computer (here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7939), and still not able to program in C, I decided it was time to switch gears. Although I do enjoy 6502 assembly, I really *really* wanted to just program in C again. So I made a PIC-only computer instead!

https://github.com/stevenchadburrow/AcolyteHandPICd

I know that it's not 6502 related, so I won't go into details here. If you are interested you can see my github page or you can always PM me.

None of this would have been possible without the help that y'all gave me for many years now. I have learned SO MUCH and am very thankful for all of your help and support along the way.

Thank you everyone!

Chad

Looks good. Thanks for the update.

Always better to have something you're happy to use and achieve than to struggle on against the tools, environment, etc. I think.

I have always felt C on the '816 is an issue - dealing with data structures, short/near/far/long whatever pointers and so on. Having to think about the things I let compilers and operating systems deal with 4 decades ago.... It's highly unlikely I'll ever do another '816 project myself now.

Hope you have lots of fun with it!

Cheers,

-Gordon

_________________
--
Gordon Henderson.
See my Ruby 6502 and 65816 SBC projects here: https://projects.drogon.net/ruby/

There are those among us who thrive on the minutiae, and happily juggle their dangerously hot coffees while driving their manual transmission cars to work every day ... that being said, I'm "just not that into" the 16-bit "native" properties of the '816, so I empathize with your position.

Oh, and welcome back, Chad! Thanks for checking in, at least.

_________________
Got a kilobyte lying fallow in your 65xx's memory map? Sprinkle some VTL02C on it and see how it grows on you!

Mike B. (about me) (learning how to github)

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

Please tell me it wasn't a PIC-14? To voluntarily choose that would surely be the height of self-abnegation...

(In a previous job I spent five years writing PIC-14 assembly, with added constraints of which pins might be used for which functions, based on practical experience of how they failed once the operating temperature got above 150C (302F). Let's just say that they have certain quirks which can make them, um, difficult.)

Neil

_________________
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?

I'm just shocked that he went with a PIC18. A '24 is *much* less insane (at the assembly) level the the PIC18.

oops, yes: pic16 with 14-bit words. Obviously I've tried to forget

Neil

If it will entice you back to 65816 land; I'm still working on a C++ like* compiler for the '816.

Should you hold your breathe whilst waiting? Nope, I'm a couple of years into the project and can still see many years of work ahead. Will it ever be finished? Probably. I'm too far down the '816 hardware path to back out now. And, like you, I program much faster in C/C++ than in native assembly.

* Most of C++98 with bits of C++11 that I use thrown in.

_________________
x86?  We ain't got no x86.  We don't NEED no stinking x86!

I really should get better at macros - in any architecture's assemblers. I mostly just use them for very basic stuff like changing memory widths etc...

The other reason I need a C++ compiler is I have *decades* of highly optimised C++ code that would make a brilliant foundation for building, well, anything on the '816 really. And none of it has dependencies on external libraries*. It's everything from basic stuff like collections to memory management, image manipulation, file systems and text parsing. It's just not worth rewriting it all.

* Not strictly true but it's nothing I would need. I.e. input device access from DirectInput or RawInput etc..