Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 12:46 UTC
Amiga & AROS The fabled Amiga X1000 has been spotted in the wild, in the homeliest of places--Station X, a.k.a Bletchley Park. "The AmigaOne X1000 is a custom dual core PowerPC board with plenty of modern ports and I/O interfaces. It runs AmigaOS 4, and is supported by Hyperion, a partner in the project. The most interesting bit, though, is the use of an 500Mhz XCore co-processor, which the X1000's hardware designer describes as a descendant of the transputer - once the great hope of British silicon." With thanks to Jason McGint, 'Richard' and Pascal Papara for submissions.
Thread beginning with comment 431287
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
aliquis
Member since:
2005-07-23

Don't ask me, back then I got my first Amiga the guy I meet have had two for very long, it was Igge of Noice. He where writing some demos in assembler (trash'm one version of asm one) on the Amiga but got a 3 or 486 and started writing on that one. And obviously he liked it better and he where probably a much bigger nerd and knowledgeable than 95% of the current crop of Amiga users (5% reserved for people into the demo scene ...)

It was my impression he liked assembler on the 386 better to (his amigas where 500s..)

And with PPC wasn't the saying it was hard to code assembler for it?

Reply Parent Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The funniest part is that CISC machines (like the i386 and MC68K) have such "complex" instructions in order to make the life of the assembly programmer easier.

Where the predominant wisdom for RISC machines was that the complexity was going to be transferred to the compiler.

Which makes it a hoot to hear the arguments by people who haven't programmed any major piece of code in assembler to croon about how great RISC designs are for bare metal programming. Alas, one thing is for certain in this field... those with the least amount of direct experience (or knowledge) tend to be the ones with the strongest opinions.

Oh, well...

Reply Parent Score: 2

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Where the predominant wisdom for RISC machines was that the complexity was going to be transferred to the compiler.

Complexity of what?

It is common misunderstanding what making things easier for compilers, it will somehow complicate things for programmers. This is not true. Assembly programmers benefit from it MORE.

Which makes it a hoot to hear the arguments by people who haven't programmed any major piece of code in assembler to croon about how great RISC designs are for bare metal programming.


Ok. So these who say what RISC is simpler to program in asm you classify as uneducated guess.
I have a lot of assembly experience (10+ years of 100% assembly).
I'm familiar with Z80, AVR, x86, 68K, ARM, MIPS, SPARC, CELL.
And I can say what RISC designs are MUCH simpler to code in ASM then CISC.
Simple and straightforward uniform 3/4-operand instruction set is a key.
68k is close, but it is 2-operand. x86 with it's idiotisms like dedicated registers for specific instruction is nowhere as near.
I need to memorize less things with RISC and instructions do not have awkward restrictions because of brain-damaged instruction encoding.

There is an old but still good article on RISC-CISC debate
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT021300000000&p=1

Reply Parent Score: 3