(Hmm, the tone seems to have got a bit heated, a bit argumentative, here. Not the usual sort of discussion we have here.)

There are several mentions of the CH376 (and the CH375) on 6502.org, including this: http://forum.6502.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4140.

I'd probably go for one of the breakout boards myself instead of messing about with SMT components.

The Raspberry Pi type devices very easily and cheaply serve the standalone, and very low cost, computer needs of many. Although, as can be seen all over this site, there's great fun and personal challenge to be had in putting together a 6502 machine from scratch, it's certainly not a low cost endeavor, and compared to something like a Pi 3 or Pi Zero W, a 6502 board loses on physical size, power, capacity, speed, capabilities, software support, language support, community support, market support, penetration and cool.

A painful truth for some is that the 6502 is a relic with almost no modern relevance. I say "almost" generously, as some people will point out that it ships millions a year or some stat from WDC. There's a niche for everything, it seems, but that doesn't negate my point. Oh, and as I'm making no friends with this post, Forth has been dead for two decades; get over it.

That said, the 6502 is also a warm blanket for those nostalgic types like me who remember long twilight hours in the 80s hacking on an Atari 800XL. It's still a fine trainer for an entry-level microcomputer project (as is the Z-80 (boo, hiss)), as it's fairly straightforward to hook up and a full design can be drawn on a single sheet and understood completely. Simple microcontrollers hide the system bus inside the device, so you don't get to learn about computer architecture. Old 8-bitters are perfect for that.

I have a fondness for the 6502, but I think it's folly to think it has a widespread practical use in today's world. The technology train is forever moving forward, and the old '76 6502 had its moment in the Sun, when it had all the press and was the go-to chip for all the new designs. You can choose to cling on to it... you aren't hurtin' nobody... but if you're technically minded, which you seem to be, then I'll tell you there's fun to be had in newer devices, newer architectures, higher level languages and concepts.

So, it's great to discuss things, great to bring opinions and insights.

But if we throw in flamebait together with the interesting stuff, or if we attack people rather than ideas, or express ourselves dismissively rather than requesting clarification, it become an argument instead of a discussion.

Arguments are very attractive for people who feel argumentative, but they are not so attractive for people who would enjoy a productive discussion.

By inviting disagreement, by overstating our case, by throwing in hyperbole, we end up with an impoverished conversation, and ultimately an impoverished forum.

Different places have different norms. YouTube is great for arguments and insults. It's less good for insight.

Please let's all try and keep this place an insightful and enjoyable place.

_________________
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?

The point is valid, Garth, much like the point I made in another thread that its better to type code in that cut and paste it in.

That said, however, we're in an era now, with cheap, volume, sophisticated electronics and powerful microprocessors, where folks who want to dabble in "things that have electronics" don't need to be Electrical Engineers in order to play.

It's straight forward for someone interested in the mechanical aspect of a robot, say, to simply wire together off the shelf controllers and "shields" to drive stepper motors and servos, automated with script in Python vs having to start with understanding what a power transistor is for and how it's used, much less getting a microprocessor board bootstrapped and operational.

People today can start at whatever level they feel comfortable, and then, from there, go to any other level they feel comfortable. The barrier to entry to dabbling with any of this stuff is really low now. Find a list of parts on line, find some software on line, wire the parts together (using pretty colored hookup wires), plug it in to your laptop, drag and drop the software, and shazam...magic happens.

If someone wants to learn programming using some kind of drag and drop visual environment, more power to them. If they like it, they can learn more conventional environments. If they don't, well then, it was probably a good idea that they didn't start with C as a learning language.

How many kids wiring up Arduino gadgets started with Lego Mindstorms? How many kids who were plugging Arduino boards together last year are programming CPLD devices today on their breadboards?

One of the electronic supply companies, Sparkfun maybe, I don't recall, was selling surplus cell phone cameras. Basically it said "we have these surplus cell phone cameras, and that's about all we know about it -- have fun." Later, there was a post by a 17 year old (I think, maybe 19), describing the FPGA he had built up to interface with the camera. A teenager reverse engineered the control circuit for a random cell phone camera and burned a gate array to make it work. Who knows how this kid got started, but I'm betting it wasn't with electronics theory and ohm's law. It probably wasn't even Mim's notebooks.

The easy availability of components, at all levels of sophistication, empowers people of all knowledge levels to explore this space.

Actually, WDC's annual sales of ~$10 million (in 2015) do support the claim that millions of 6502s in one form or another find their way into products.

There's an adage I first heard when I was just starting out with computers (late 1960s): "New technology isn't necessarily better than old technology." If the existing (i.e., old) technology can continue to do the job then it isn't obsolete and there is no justification for scrapping it. Few businesses replace their information technology each time a "new and improved" version is release, unless what they have isn't cutting the mustard anymore.

As for the 6502 being a relic, it all depends one one's definition of "relic." Age in and of itself doesn't make anything a relic. J.S. Bach's Fantasia and Fugue in G-Minor was composed nearly 300 hundred years ago. Yet I've never heard anyone refer to that work, or any other by Bach, as a "relic." As the 6502 (more correctly, 65C02 and 65C816) is much more recent than Bach's organ masterpiece, and remains in production and current use, it also doesn't qualify, in my opinion, as a relic.

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

I don't doubt that at all. A decade or so ago I was using a small Ethernet switch chip from Marvell. It had a number of ports, I don't know... 12 maybe. Almost all the pins were Ethernet Rx/Tx, and conspicuously missing were LED drivers. As you might expect, different customers want different things from LEDs. In Ethernet there's link, activity, collision, error, speed, duplex, and other possible LEDs I'm sure I've forgotten. It was too expensive to add 12-ports x 6+ LED drivers to the chip to cover every conceivable customer design, so instead they embedded a tiny little 8-bit CPU core into the device for the sole purpose of letting the customer realize their own unique LED functionality. It worked like this: Every 30ms the CPU would execute its program (loaded from SPI flash). Available in the CPU memory map was a data block containing the state information for all ports - link, activity, etc, etc. From there the program would take the data that was relevant to the design, and build a byte stream in memory which would be clocked out of a serial link when the program terminated. At the other end of the serial link the customer would have a CPLD convert the stream into their desired set of LED signals... and blinking and flashing would ensue. Relevance? You never know where CPU cores, licensed or otherwise, might show up. Maybe they're keeping the temperature and pressure within safe tolerances, or maybe they're blinking LEDs.

It's true, but that adage is usually a warning to not automatically jump on this year's new thing when last year's thing is perfectly fine. The 6502 arrived 4-5 years after the first microprocessor (the CADC used in the F14... according to Wikipedia). 1975 was 42 years ago. This isn't new hotness vs. good enough. This is generations of advancement. It's absurd to even debate it. I guess you really do love the little guy. So do I... but I guess not the same.

In technology, it kinda does.

In art, it kinda doesn't. Of course the same can be said for biology. The cardiopulmonary system has been around at least as long as Bach, and I think it's still reasonably well regarded.

I feel we're not going to come to an accord on this, and that's ok. I hope you don't mind the jousting... As I said in my previous post, I think the 6502 makes a fine trainer in computer design, but mostly I think it belongs in a frame on a wall, with a plaque and a spotlight whereas I think you think it belongs in a circuit, doing real relevant work. I don't think we're ever going to drink beers together over this... so I guess I'll have to wait to read your stories here...

The 6502, never mind 16-bit sequels to it, is not dead.

The smallest conceivable stand-alone 6502 computer having a video output and a USB port for a flash drive memory could sell by the millions.

There is a huge unmet need.

Small business cannot be competitive using only postal mail. Email is hacked by anybody who wants new ideas and is willing to steal them. The propaganda denying the very existence of perfect encryption keeps entrepreneurs fatalistically accepting their risks. Hacking has reached the art of hacking an off-line computer, so long as it has wireless capability. Computers are no longer sold without wireless capability. They have even started to solder it into the system board so that you cannot merely remove the network card. There is no trustworthy operating system or program that is beyond the reach of big money.

What is needed is a text processor that can encrypt a message in total secrecy.

I know EXACTLY how to design it and market it. So do some of you. Let us cooperate.

Contact Future Beacon dot com or dot org or dot net or dot us and talk to Jim Adrian, the old guy.

Jim Adrian

_________________
Jim Adrian

https://www.futurebeacon.com/jamesadrian.htm

Pursuant to my last message, I wrote to President Trump:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very concerned that President Trump may not know some of the contents of this article:

https://www.futurebeacon.com/perfectencryption.htm

The content is very politically important and affects upward mobility as well as liberty.

Very sincerely,

James Adrian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________
Jim Adrian

https://www.futurebeacon.com/jamesadrian.htm

(Isn't this likely to take this thread in a most unhelpful direction?)

Big Ed,

My message is extremely important and exactly on topic. What danger do you see in engaging the talents of the people here toward one of the most important technical matters affecting people?

The people here can solve this problem.

Why not?

_________________
Jim Adrian

https://www.futurebeacon.com/jamesadrian.htm

(I believe I have been misunderstood. Replied by PM. Let's try to stay on-topic here - it's a technical forum.)

_________________
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?

GARTHWILSON,

A mathematician by the name of Claude Shannon published a very technical and widely confirmed and acclaimed explanation of perfect encryption by 1950, when the Russians claimed to have discovered the same insights.

Perfect encryption is not just perfect security, it is the simplest know encryption method. It demands the least of the central processor, (which ever one you choose).

There are three tactics used in encryption algorithms. complexity, obscure mathematics, and shared secrets. Hacking has become a growth industry because shared secrets are rarely used. My explanation of perfect encryption is shorter and simpler than the one originally offered by Claude Shannon. It is located here:

https://www.futurebeacon.com/perfectencryption.htm

Implementing encryption in a simple device that is ASSURED to be off line is an enormously appropriate and timely application for the 6502.

_________________
Jim Adrian

https://www.futurebeacon.com/jamesadrian.htm