[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

Even the most basic of hard wired digital chips have boolean code embedded
in them!

Boolean code? You mean firmware?

No, in fact there are chips with no firmware in them, especially early chips
which were entirely hard-wired.

Programming is done by the chip designer.

Sometimes, depending on the chip. Of course, if there is no firmware, there is
no programming to do.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
You are simply drawing a distinction between firmware code programmed
into
chips, and software code. I didn't.

I didn't say anything about firmware. The hardware side of interrupts may
be
implemented partially in firmware, or it may be entirely hard-wired. It
makes
no difference.

Even the most basic of hard wired digital chips have boolean code embedded
in them! Programming is done by the chip designer.

I'm sorry, this discussion is getting much too silly. I'm dropping out.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Even the most basic of hard wired digital chips have boolean code
embedded
in them!

Boolean code? You mean firmware?

No, in fact there are chips with no firmware in them, especially early
chips
which were entirely hard-wired.

I suggest you look up boolean logic. Stringing gates together is simply
harware programming.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

I'm sorry, this discussion is getting much too silly. I'm dropping out.

Glad to hear it, that you don't realise the inherent programming/coding
provided by most digital chips is no great surprise. Even those who strung
7400 chips together had to understand boolean logic.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

I suggest you look up boolean logic.

I know what boolean means. It just surprised me to see you talk about "boolean
code," in digital chips, since that's the only kind of code that the chips
have, anyway. Everything in computers nowadays is based on binary numbers and
boolean ("yes/no") algebra, so calling something "boolean" is redundant, a bit
like saying that all chips are "electronic," as if there were any other kind.

Stringing gates together is simply harware programming.

Programming is the preparation of sequences of instructions, with the
implication that these instructions can be changed. Hard-wired logic cannot be
changed. Hard-wired logic is usually more performant than firmware, but
firmware is a lot cheaper and can be changed after manufacture. Traditionally,
high-performance systems have used more hard wiring than low-performance
systems, but as hardware becomes faster, the temptation to embed more in
firmware becomes harder and harder to resist.

Of course, the relevance of this to audio systems is quite limited. Today's
computers are so fast that even a lowly PC running ordinary software can
process audio data at very high sample rates without too much trouble. Even at
192 kHz, a typical desktop computer today can churn through tens of thousands
of instructions per sample, depending on what it's doing.

For video, the situation is different, but I suppose the hardware will
eventually speed up enough to cover all video situations, too.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

Glad to hear it, that you don't realise the inherent programming/coding
provided by most digital chips is no great surprise. Even those who strung
7400 chips together had to understand boolean logic.

The "inherent programming/coding"? The "boolean logic"? What exactly are you
talking about?

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Trevor writes:

Even the most basic of hard wired digital chips have boolean code
embedded
in them!

Boolean code? You mean firmware?

No, in fact there are chips with no firmware in them, especially early
chips
which were entirely hard-wired.

Right. This is one reason why PLAs are still beind used for new product
design. It's all about picking the right tool for the job at hand.

Programming is done by the chip designer.

Sometimes, depending on the chip. Of course, if there is no firmware,
there is
no programming to do.

Agreed.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Even the most basic of hard wired digital chips have boolean code
embedded
in them!

Boolean code? You mean firmware?

No, in fact there are chips with no firmware in them, especially early
chips
which were entirely hard-wired.

I suggest you look up boolean logic. Stringing gates together is simply
harware programming.

If you define programming broadly enough, then everything is programming.

Combinatorial logic and programming logic are generally accepted to be
different things. It is also true that at the lower levels, computers are
implemented with combinatorial logic and that at higher levels computer
programming can implement combinatorial logic. But, conflating the two is
not a good idea.

The distinction between programming logic gates and programming a computer
is generally understood in most places.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Stringing gates together is simply harware programming.

Programming is the preparation of sequences of instructions, with the
implication that these instructions can be changed. Hard-wired logic
cannot be
changed. Hard-wired logic is usually more performant than firmware, but
firmware is a lot cheaper and can be changed after manufacture.
Traditionally,
high-performance systems have used more hard wiring than low-performance
systems, but as hardware becomes faster, the temptation to embed more in
firmware becomes harder and harder to resist.

All perfectly true, which still doesn't mean that stringing hardware chips
together had the same result, whether you prefer to simply make your
definitions suit you case is your choice.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Even the most basic of hard wired digital chips have boolean code
embedded
in them!

Boolean code? You mean firmware?

No, in fact there are chips with no firmware in them, especially early
chips
which were entirely hard-wired.

Right. This is one reason why PLAs are still beind used for new product
design. It's all about picking the right tool for the job at hand.

Programming is done by the chip designer.

Sometimes, depending on the chip. Of course, if there is no firmware,
there is
no programming to do.

Agreed.

The hardware still performs the same functions whether you choose to call it
"programming" or not.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I suggest you look up boolean logic. Stringing gates together is simply
harware programming.

If you define programming broadly enough, then everything is programming.

Combinatorial logic and programming logic are generally accepted to be
different things.


OK, as always it semantics. PLA "programming" took over from much hardware
"combinatorial logic" to produce exactly the same functions. Yes the
distinction is important to the implementation. No it's not important to the
basic function.


It is also true that at the lower levels, computers are implemented with
combinatorial logic and that at higher levels computer programming can
implement combinatorial logic. But, conflating the two is not a good idea.
The distinction between programming logic gates and programming a computer
is generally understood in most places.


If the distinction is important to the original discussion (it wasn't in
this case) then yes you DO need to be specific. That's the trouble here,
people always argung "from the general to the specific" and pretending that
makes them superior.
As long as it boosts their ego, I guess they are happy!

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

All perfectly true, which still doesn't mean that stringing hardware chips
together had the same result, whether you prefer to simply make your
definitions suit you case is your choice.

I'm afraid I don't see your point.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

OK, as always it semantics.

No. In this case, it's misunderstanding of the underlying theory and concepts.

That's the trouble here, people always argung "from the general to the
specific" and pretending that makes them superior.
As long as it boosts their ego, I guess they are happy!

Remember what I said about pros vs. amateurs?

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

The hardware still performs the same functions whether you choose to call it
"programming" or not.

Then the distinctions you've made don't serve any purpose, QED.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
I'm afraid I don't see your point.

No surprise there then.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Remember what I said about pros vs. amateurs?

Right, you were an amateur.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
The hardware still performs the same functions whether you choose to call
it
"programming" or not.

Then the distinctions you've made don't serve any purpose, QED.

What destinctions did I make? And you still haven't told us how or why the
Apollo 11 sensors generated "Trillions of interupts"? Simply gone off on a
tangent to deflect the question.

Trevor.

[Mxsmanic]

Trevor writes:

What destinctions did I make? And you still haven't told us how or why the
Apollo 11 sensors generated "Trillions of interupts"? Simply gone off on a
tangent to deflect the question.

Let me go directly to the point: Your posts betray a very broad ignorance of
computer concepts, an ignorance so great that it is not possible to hold a
useful conversation about the topic with you. The more you post, the more
obvious your ignorance becomes. Your personal attacks are insufficient to
divert attention from this.

If you'd like to discuss audio (the nominal topic of this group), and assuming
you know a lot more about audio than you do about computers, I'll be happy to
continue. But the novelty of listening to your increasingly off-the-wall posts
on computer technology has worn off. Sorry.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Trevor writes:

All perfectly true, which still doesn't mean that stringing hardware chips
together had the same result, whether you prefer to simply make your
definitions suit you case is your choice.

I'm afraid I don't see your point.

He doesn't have one, it is merely a diversionary tactic. I think it's time
to shut this thread down.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Let me go directly to the point: Your posts betray a very broad ignorance
of
computer concepts, an ignorance so great that it is not possible to hold a
useful conversation about the topic with you. The more you post, the more
obvious your ignorance becomes. Your personal attacks are insufficient to
divert attention from this.

I made no personal attacks, your claims of my ignorance simply to mask your
own is nothing but a personal attack however.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
.. .
Let me go directly to the point: Your posts betray a very broad ignorance
of
computer concepts, an ignorance so great that it is not possible to hold a
useful conversation about the topic with you. The more you post, the more
obvious your ignorance becomes. Your personal attacks are insufficient to
divert attention from this.

I made no personal attacks, your claims of my ignorance simply to mask your
own is nothing but a personal attack however.

It's a valid one, though. I'd be pleased to engage in an actual discussion
about interrupt management with you. However, you open your mouth and
random words come out, which don't make any actual sense. It's like some
kind of word salad. This is bad, since I have not noticed you doing this
on audio topics. If you want to actually talk about interrupt management,
masks, and asynchronous operations, that would be nice, but you don't seem
to be able to actually carry on a reasoned discussion on topic here.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
I made no personal attacks, your claims of my ignorance simply to mask
your
own is nothing but a personal attack however.

It's a valid one, though. I'd be pleased to engage in an actual
discussion
about interrupt management with you. However, you open your mouth and
random words come out, which don't make any actual sense.

To you, obviously.

This is bad, since I have not noticed you doing this
on audio topics.

Glad to hear it, yet you often make the same claims about my audio comments.
My claiming a "brick wall" limiter was not simply the same as a compressor
or general limiter for example. That one can actually view an audio file in
a wave editor and determine if it's clipped etc.

But the whole point of the discussion of whether a computer can actually be
built so as not to suffer "system shutdown" every time it's presented with
more data than it can immediately handle from a hardware sensor, seems to
have been lost. I'll let you continue to believe it can't.

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

Boolean code? You mean firmware?

No, in fact there are chips with no firmware in them, especially early
chips
which were entirely hard-wired.

Right. This is one reason why PLAs are still beind used for new product
design. It's all about picking the right tool for the job at hand.

You mean like using vacuum tubes for good sounding audio? Yes, there
is no substitute for a pair of 300Bs in push pull....

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

wrote in message
...


Boolean code? You mean firmware?

No, in fact there are chips with no firmware in them, especially early
chips
which were entirely hard-wired.

Right. This is one reason why PLAs are still beind used for new product
design. It's all about picking the right tool for the job at hand.

You mean like using vacuum tubes for good sounding audio?

No.

Yes, there is no substitute for a pair of 300Bs in push pull....

Is that the good news or the bad news?

Personally, I like a little more beef - 211s for example.

;-)