FPGA VAX update

[Holger Veit]

Tony Duell wrote:

>>There are two aspects IMHO why this does no longer happen today:
>>- what was a known magazine in the past, would today perhaps=20
>>realistically called "Un-Popular Electronics", the knowledge of=20
>>electronics from the ground up is dying out; and with the continuing=20
>>"digitalization" of technology, it is an ever increasing hurdle to get=20
>>started - the classical AM detector radio I built as a newbie will=20
>>nowadays no longer attract anyone - you can get a gadget which is better=20
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm... There are plenty of books on making simple valve radios still 
>being written and sold (I bought a couple last week). OH, it's a small 
>market, but somebody other than myself must find it interesting.
>  
>
I should not write postings multi-threaded :-( The argument actually 
mixes up two ideas; the first is that an AM
detector is too mediocre to most people nowadays who are accustomed to 
FM stereo sound or even
5.1/6.1/7.1/whatever sound even with cheapest receivers. The second 
point emphasizes on the "digitalization" issue:
in the near future there won't be any analogue AM or FM 
transmissions/transmitters any more; even SW band migrates
to DRM now - so success won't be reached anymore with the a variable 
cap, a coil, a diode, a high-owmed head phone
and a reasonable long wire as the antenna. Surely there will be high 
integrated circuit modules that decode all the stuff, but
electronics hobby is not really interesting when reduced to adding a 
battery to a black box.

>However, I don't see much interest in spending a long time soldering up 
>somebody else's design. All that proves is that you can solder and/or 
>wire-wrap. To me the interesting part is in the design. Yes, I enjoy 
>spending many hours designing anf building digital circuits (TTL, I don't 
>have anything to run FPGA tools on [1]). But I like to think of a bit of 
>design, wire up 10 or so chips, get that working, then add a bit more, 
>and so on. It's the stuff I learn while doing it that's interesting, not 
>the end result.
>  
>
Of course. Building some gadget from a kit is just part of learning the 
usage of the tools. I did this in the very beginning,
as almost every newbie, but after a while changed to own experiments.

>[1] I did use FPGA tools at work about 10 years ago on what were then 
>high-end PCs. A moderately complicated circuit would take overnight to 
>compile. And you had to do it again if you made a change. And hope the 
>ever-helpful clearners didn't turn your PC off that night. Personally, 
>for 'incremental prototyping' I find TTL a lot easier and quicker. It's 
>also easier to debug -- a logic analyser and 'scope beat any simulation 
>program I've ever seen.
>
>-tony
>  
>
Unfortunately, many of the more interesting TTLs are now no longer 
easily available (you find lots of octal
drivers and registers,  but almost none of ALUs, multifunction chips, 
RAMs - even the classical
7490,7491,7492,7493 combo of counters for any purpose is reduced to 
7490/7493 - noone
needs to divide by 6 ('92) any more - you don't build digital clocks in 
TTL) - you have to seek for
them in specialized mail-order shops. This is no issue for us old farts 
who play with such stuff for
long time, but it is another hurdle for starters. A kit with all parts 
is much easier to acquire - but then,
agreed, soldering is not the fun part of that hobby. Isn't there more 
than soldering kits? Sure there is, but
things become complicated very fast. This wasn't the case in the 70s and 
80s when I began.

Regards
Holger