Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
KermMartian wrote:
James: That's great, I actually did the same a few years back. Did he ever get back to you?

No, I never heard back. I guess the email address on his ticalc.org profile must be an old address he no longer checks.

Anyhow, I think it's important for the community that an updated set of tutorials are released Smile
elfprince13 wrote:
Do it right, use LaTex Razz

Tari wrote:
I rather like that idea. Pandoc?


Pandoc can convert to/from LaTeX, so if you want your own fancy doc, you can just convert to LaTeX.
JamesV wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
James: That's great, I actually did the same a few years back. Did he ever get back to you?

No, I never heard back. I guess the email address on his ticalc.org profile must be an old address he no longer checks.

Anyhow, I think it's important for the community that an updated set of tutorials are released Smile
Well, I think Learn TI-83 Plus ASM in 28 Days is still admirable and would continue to serve well as-is, but updating it would make life even smoother for a lot of new ASM programmers. And perhaps we could help counter the incorrect notion that some sites (cough) perpetuate that ASM is hard to learn. Wink

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally fine with writing this in LaTeX, but I think the combination of learning a new ML and the time required to convert all of the current HTML to TeX would dissuade a lot of the people posting in this thread from participating.
I would think it wouldn't take more than a couple hours to convert most of the existing documents into a reasonable LaTeX format, barring the appendices, which we would probably want to script a conversion for to generate the correct table environments.

I had my whole lab group writing our reports in LaTeX pretty quickly this semester, and the people who were to lazy to learn it could just submit plain text to be tidied up when it was merged in.



I was mostly joking when I suggested it, but I don't think it's actually that far-fetched of an idea.

Also also, pedantically speaking, LaTeX isn't really a markup language in the conventional sense, since it has a context-sensitive grammar, and most markup languages are context-free.
Fair enough. Smile Anyway, since Tari's repository is in HTML for now, let's worry about content first and formatting second. I know that the interrupts day is one of the most-wanting sections, so I'll probably start my work there.
Nice, will it touch on which calcs have a CMOS CPU and which have the bugged NMOS CPU?

Also, BrandonW should write stuff about the USB Very Happy
Also, i'd like to add a few days specifically related to programming games. I don't know if there's a list somewhere of new days people would like added and old days people would like updated? It might be useful to come up with a list of things to do so that people could pick and choose where to start.
AHelper wrote:
Nice, will it touch on which calcs have a CMOS CPU and which have the bugged NMOS CPU?
Why would that be relevant? They all do interrupts the same way as far as I know.

Chickendude: I agree, let's figure that out in this topic.
The NMOS line has a bug in the LD A, I/R instruction, which the CMOS line corrected. The TI-83+SE and above all have CMOS Z80s inside, the newer, ASIC-based TI-83+s probably has CMOS Z80s, and the original TI-83+ may well have a CMOS Z80 inside of it, because the CMOS Z80 is more power efficient than the NMOS design.
Out of curiosity, how does NMOS/CMOS affect things like im 2 behavior or the 5 and 3 flags? Or are the behavior differences due to some other change?
IM 2 behavior is not affect. The undocumented bit 3 and 5 flags are probably the same. Probably.

Edit: Apparently, my TI-84+SE does have the LD A, I/R bug. This page implies that the bug only applies to the NMOS version of the CPU, but that appears not to be the case.
I have a ti84pse (all ram, more fun for me) and has the ld a,i bug :/

I have read later pages that say that CMOS and NMOS both have the "behavior that was wrong according to Zilog at first".
When you do get round to the continual improvement of the tutorial, might I recommend that you add quizzes at the end of each day so that the reader can test their understanding of the concepts taught? I think this would be really worthwhile for the learning experience.
BUMP!
After doing day 3 I have found it to be very long winded and could be separated over a few days. Conversely, day 4 is ridiculously short, so perhaps some of the content from day three could be merged with flags (such as negative numbers).
ElectronicsGeek wrote:
BUMP!
After doing day 3 I have found it to be very long winded and could be separated over a few days. Conversely, day 4 is ridiculously short, so perhaps some of the content from day three could be merged with flags (such as negative numbers).
I think the negative number discussion in general also needs to be improved, to expand on the subject of your post. I know that tifreak8x and others have been baffled by the idea of negative numbers in assembly. Rebalancing the material between days 3 and 4 sounds reasonable to me.
I second the idea about re-explaining negative numbers. Just to check my understanding, would I be correct in saying that to perform two's complement on a binary number I have to:

1. Invert the bits of the number (suppose my number was 10010111)
01101000
2. Add one to the inverted number
01101001

Would that be right, or am I missing some steps?
KermMartian wrote:
I think that one of ASM28D's biggest flaws is that it doesn't have nearly enough example code and complete example programs
Yeah that was my main gripe about the tutorial and I believe it was a big obstacle for visual people who need concrete examples of how something works in order to understand it. Just fixing that (while still keeping the current order of chapters) would make it much easier for those people to learn ASM.

Another thing is that maybe pointers and registers might need to be explained more thoroughly with those people in mind.

And yeah, the long-awaited Day 1 update mentionned above of course Razz
UnknownLoner discovered that in its discussion of rst XXh, ASM in 28 Days incorrectly says that rst XXh functionally pushes PC+3 and jumps to XXh. In fact, it pushes PC+1 and jumps to XXh.
also ASM in 28 days has no documentation on jp (hl), just jp (imm16)

EDIT: I think it referrences jp (hl) in the tutorials, it's just not in the big instruction list
Any updates on this? I really want to start learning z80 assembly, and was waiting for this to be finished.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 2 of 7
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement