From b72fbf6564e1a36f1cdeda1f9b39f0e8263796e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nick Morgan Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:23:16 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Appease the 6502 lobby. --- index.markdown | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/index.markdown b/index.markdown index fb01c40..f94f3be 100644 --- a/index.markdown +++ b/index.markdown @@ -18,9 +18,13 @@ Terminator was programmed in 6502](http://www.pagetable.com/docs/terminator/00-37-23.jpg). So, why would you want to learn 6502? It's a dead language isn't it? Well, -yeah, but so's Latin. And they still teach that. +so's Latin. And they still teach that. [Q.E.D.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.) +(Actually, I've been reliably informed that 6502 processors are still being +produced by [Western Design Center](http://www.65xx.com/wdc/), so clearly 6502 +*isn't* a dead language! Who knew?) + Seriously though, I think it's valuable to have an understanding of assembly language. Assembly language is the lowest level of abstraction in computers - the point at which the code is still readable. Assembly language translates @@ -32,7 +36,7 @@ Then why 6502? Why not a *useful* assembly language, like [x86](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86)? Well, I don't think learning x86 is useful. I don't think you'll ever have to *write* assembly language in your day job - this is purely an academic exercise, something to expand your mind and -your thinking. 6502 was written in a different age, a time when the majority of +your thinking. 6502 was originally written in a different age, a time when the majority of developers were writing assembly directly, rather than in these new-fangled high-level programming languages. So, it was designed to be written by humans. More modern assembly languages are meant to written by compilers, so let's