CUBIX/6809 updates

[Scott Stevens]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:15:48 +0000
"Dave Dunfield" <dave04a at dunfield.com> wrote:

> 
> > I think cubix was a good idea, but this 15 years too late for
> > me as I 
> 
> What a co-incidence ... CUBIX is 20+ years old, so it should
> have been perfect :-)
> 
> > realize in hindsight that 128k of
> > memory - split code and data is needed for any real work. This
> > the  crummy 8088 has but not the 6809.
> 
> Funny, I've done LOTS of "real work" in <64k 8-bit CPUs. Even
> now a lot of my command line utilities are compiled in 64k
> "tiny" model (Referencing stuff known here, Anyone notice that
> ImageDisk, my Simulators and the various other transfer
> utilities that I've done are all .COM files) - I used to think
> 64k was lots of memory... and I still do!
> 

64K is a HECK of a lot of memory if your code is all in assembly. 
I've worked on projects where the limited program memory in the
micro, i.e. the 16K of program memory available on-chip, was a
godsend- it served as a brake on futher 'feature creep' requests
from the folks in marketing.  ("yes, we can include new feature
'x' but it means doing away with the lookup table that feature 'j'
you requested last month uses.")