[cctalk] Re: DEC Unibus variants
On 2025-04-01 11:55 a.m., ED SHARPE via cctalk wrote: > Why not try? > I'm open to your comments. > > As for the UNIBUS unobtainable transceivers: I think the best solution is > to use AM26S10 for drivers, and an LVC logic powered at 3.3v for receivers. > Both are active parts costing nuts. > I would try this approach. > Can a similar bus to the unibus be designed with standard parts using fewer cards?Memory and IO could all fit on one card. > Andrea Ben.
[cctalk] Why I am not worried about AI taking over the world!
So, I am working on another fun project on my trusty old TRS-80's. I need the ability to do multi-line functions which TRS-80 BASIC does not support. But in hopes of finding something where someone added that capability in the distant past (there were lots of features added by various people over time) I decided to just try a Google Search. As we all know Google now begins results with an AI generated answer to your question. This is what I got: -- In TRS-80 BASIC, you can create multi-line functions (subroutines) using the DEF FN statement, allowing you to define a function that can perform a specific task and be called from different parts of your program. Here's how it works: DEF FN Statement: You use the DEF FN statement to define a function, followed by the function name (e.g., FNMyFunction), a set of parentheses for any arguments, and then the code that the function will execute. Example: 10 DEF FNC(X,Y) = X*X + Y*Y defines a function named FNC that takes two arguments (X and Y) and returns the sum of their squares. Function Call: To use the function, you simply call it by its name, passing in the necessary arguments. Example: 20 PRINT FNC(3,4) would print the value returned by the FNC function when called with arguments 3 and 4, which is 25. Multi-line Functions: You can extend the DEF FN statement to span multiple lines, allowing for more complex logic within the function. Example: Code 10 DEF FNC(X,Y) 20 LET TEMP = X * X 30 LET TEMP = TEMP + Y * Y 40 DEF FN END 50 PRINT FNC(3,4) This example defines a function that calculates the sum of squares of two numbers, but the calculation is broken down into multiple lines for readability. Key Points: Line Numbers: TRS-80 BASIC relies on line numbers, so make sure to use them appropriately when defining multi-line functions. Function Name: Function names must start with FN followed by a valid identifier (e.g., FNC, FNMyFunction). DEF FN END: You need to use DEF FN END to mark the end of the function definition, especially when using multi-line functions. Scope: Functions are defined within the scope of the program and are accessible from anywhere in the program. --- Which is both wrong and totally absurd. And I see things all the time about letting AI write your code for you. Does anyone actually trust AI to write code? bill
[cctalk] Re: Why I am not worried about AI taking over the world!
And now I have to clean the coffee out of my keyboard I asked the question with slightly different wording and got a totally different explanation with even more absurd examples. I think I'll ask it to write me a PL/M Compiler in TRS-80 BASIC. :-) bill
[cctalk] Re: Why I am not worried about AI taking over the world!
One shortcoming, that has come up before, is that it is taught to NOT say, "I don't know" Somebody asked ChatGPT for the last eight digits of PI, and it gave a sequence of 8 digits. But, somebody else asked, "Is there a last digit of PI?", and it gave a reasonably correct answer. Perhaps, ask it to do it in Level I BASIC, and fit in 4K, . . . -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: And now I have to clean the coffee out of my keyboard I asked the question with slightly different wording and got a totally different explanation with even more absurd examples. I think I'll ask it to write me a PL/M Compiler in TRS-80 BASIC. :-) bill
[cctalk] Re: Why I am not worried about AI taking over the world!
> I have a book about writing AI code on a Tandy computer from 1981 Commodore did one of these too. Very primitive, but I liked it at the time. -- personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckai...@floodgap.com -- Complexity kills. -- Ray Ozzie -
[cctalk] Re: DEC Unibus variants
Dec kind of did this with the pdt11 series of systems. The q bus was basically emulated with a pair of 8085 CPUs to emulate Dec peripherals. Fine enough but kind of meh. On April 1, 2025 11:09:40 AM HST, ben via cctalk wrote: >On 2025-04-01 11:55 a.m., ED SHARPE via cctalk wrote: >> Why not try? >> I'm open to your comments. >> >> As for the UNIBUS unobtainable transceivers: I think the best solution is >> to use AM26S10 for drivers, and an LVC logic powered at 3.3v for receivers. >> Both are active parts costing nuts. >> I would try this approach. >> >Can a similar bus to the unibus be designed with standard parts using fewer >cards?Memory and IO could all fit on one card. > >> Andrea > Ben. > >
[cctalk] Re: DEC Unibus variants
couryho...@aol.com wishes to unsubscribe Sent from AOL on Android On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 3:16 AM, shad via cctalk wrote: The why not use a UniBone comment has merit, what will your (FPGA) > implementation add ? > Well, I know the Unibone! Surely is a very capable system for emulation of older hardware and interfaces. Also performances are good as far as I understand (I don't have one). I have the idea of extending the concept of Unibone. The new design shall be modular, composed by: - a main board hosting the SoM and common interfaces (Ethernet, SD, USB, console) - a bus module for specific bus / machine: support could be added for DEC / Data General / other? - an interchangeable interface module for an hardware device (SMD, Pertec, floppy, RX1/2, RL01/02, other). Any kind of interface could be supported, also for example ADC, DAC, maybe video to some limits...) If you have main module and bus module, you have a similar solution to Unibone / Qbone. However if you need to change bus type, you need to swap only the bus adapter (cheaper). If you have main and interfaces modules, you can control physical devices directly, and do anything with it. For example, you can dump / restore the content of a SMD disk at bit level, no need to know the controller format, etc. Similar to Kyroflux for floppy, but MUCH faster! Alternatively, you could also emulate the device at low level (for example a generic SMD disk). If you have a set of main, bus and interface modules, you can do anything as above, plus you can emulate a controller for a specific machine for a specific device. That said, implementing "anything" would be an infinite effort, but the platform is flexible, so support could be added step-by-step. So why an FPGA? A programmable logic can implement a true digital circuit, where the PRUs in the BeagleBone are processors. This means that in an FPGA the time is always precisely determined by a clock, in PRUs it is affected by the software execution. This means that a PRU can work quite well on an asynchronous bus, provided that sample rate is sufficient, even if not constant. But for a fast synchronous interface, i.e. when time is determined by an external clock, often embedded with data, no software approach can work steadily in my opinion. One thing is true: programming an FPGA is designing a netlist, not developing a software. It can be very hard to debug sometimes, because the approach is more similar to repairing an old board with a Logic Analyzer than perform debugging in software: it's a circuit in a chip, there no step-by-step execution! Nevertheless: I'm a quite good electronic engineer, highly experienced with digital logic and FPGA, so the hardware design wouldn't be a problem. Just a matter of time. Nowadays a SoM with a smaller AMD Zynq7010/7020 (a system-on-chip including an FPGA, plus dual core CPU, lot of peripherals) doesn't cost a lot, and have a great usage flexibility. Also brute computing power is superior to older BB. Why not try? I'm open to your comments. As for the UNIBUS unobtainable transceivers: I think the best solution is to use AM26S10 for drivers, and an LVC logic powered at 3.3v for receivers. Both are active parts costing nuts. I would try this approach. Andrea
