Re: Hardware emulation of 6509 using 6502?

On 18/03/2018 17:24, silverdr@wfmh.org.pl wrote:

> So it seems we are back to where we started. To me Ultimate (the way I 
> understand it's built) is a "real thing". And I believe I have good 
> reasons to see it that way. To you it is "definitely not" and you 
> believe you have good reasons too. It remains to agree to disagree, 
> and since you didn't respond to my offer of taking it further off-list 
> and explain further why I find your philosophical arguments far from 
> being compelling, it's time to declare EOT.

The U64 is tangible, but so is the computer running Vice. Neither of 
them are a real C64 and it's a downright lie if you said that the U64 
was, the best the U64 can do is emulate the C64 (it's turing complete, 
so it could also emulate a VIC20, C16, Sinclair Spectrum etc)

The email thread is "Re: Hardware emulation of 6509 using 6502?", which 
aligns with my viewpoint 100% but is at odds with yours. Nobody is 
making a real 6509.

You don't like my "philsophical arguments" even though they are 
consistent with history and the dictionary definitions of the words 
involved, while you favour changing what "emulate" and "implement" means 
to distinguish between two different emulation implementation details. 
Which is a bad idea, because it won't be long before the technology 
moves on and your redefined words will have become meaningless in those 
contexts. I'm not surprised you don't find the argument compelling, in 
arguments it's common to hold on to your own theory to avoid showing 
weakness.

I agree it's time to end.