[bitcracker]

> So, why would you want to learn 6502? It’s a dead language isn’t it? Well, yeah, but so’s Latin

6502 isn't dead, it has even been relaunched:

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Relaunched-the-6502-m...

6502 was my first processor, and it was real fun to learn Assembler. I used also figForth and learned from the ground up how it was implemented. Amazing days!

Today Assembler isn't fun anymore.. I don't even know the exact name of my current quad core :)

Could it be that FPGA programming will be the next golden age of "Assembler"? Content industry works hard to lock computer hardware with DRM. So if we want to keep our freedom then we'll have no other choice than to build our future computers ourselves - again.

[vidarh]

I don't know if "relaunched" is the right term, since WDC has been producing variations over the 6502 design ever since Bill Mensche (one of the original designers) left MOS (he had joint rights to the design).

From WDC's homepage:

"Annual volumes in the hundreds (100’s) of millions of units keep adding in a significant way to the estimated shipped volumes of five (5) to ten (10) billion units. "

[sliverstorm]

I question the idea that homebrew CPUs on FPGAs are the future of desktop computing. Core IP availability aside, FPGAs are very expensive.

Also, FPGAs are typically configured with an HDL, which can be likened more to C than assembler.

[bitcracker]

> FPGAs are very expensive.

Yes currently, but price depends on demand. On the other side, if FPGAs remain expensive then Assembler could become even more important to put as much code as possible into an fpga.

> can be likened more to C than assembler.

For that reason I mentioned the word Assembler in quotes. Btw VHDL is much more like Ada than C while Verilog is different from both.

[femto]

FPGAs also consume more power for a given clock rate, and their maximum frequency is less than a dedicated chip. It would be unusual to dedicate an FPGA to implementing a CPU.

It might change in the future though? I remember some years ago, the possibility of nanotube based chips were being touted, offering FPGA like programmability and speeds greater than a dedicated chip. I haven't heard of it since.

[radarsat1]

I'm not sure about that, you can get small FPGA kits for less than $100 now, and the software is free and multiplatform (but not open). The DE0-nano dev kit is an example, it's about $80. I imagine the availability of things like the Raspberri Pi will bring prices down even further.

Aside from similar to some programming language, HDL is pretty interesting to learn in its own right. (Although I disagree that it's like C. It's more like a declarative language for circuits, though it's true that you can stick imperative-like code in there. But treating it like C is a recipe for problems.)

[hatcravat]

Sure, but you can get an MSP430 dev kit (stripped down IDE for C; USB dev board with a programmer and a few buttons and LEDs; a couple devices in DIP packages) from TI for $4.30 plus shipping.

Also, most microcontroller companies provide all the specs you need to roll your own end-to-end software for the device. Aside from specifying the machine language (so you can write your own compiler), they also have app notes for programming the onboard flash via JTAG or another interface. With programmable logic, it seems like the only parts that don't require the vendor's own programmer and synthesis software are legacy SPLDs like 22v10s.

[sliverstorm]

you can get small FPGA kits for less than $100 now

I know, but a DE0-nano has only 20k LE's, and runs at 50MHz. You'd probably be limited to simulations of an Intel 8008 or thereabouts.

[pjmlp]

It is also very hard to program in Assembly nowadays, because there is no longer a 1:1 mapping between the instructions and what the processor does.