I've built stuff with 80s processors, like wire wrap and solder type of build, so I've read quite a few processor manuals/handbooks/datasheets over the years (decades...) After the failure of the 432 I saw a set of 432 databooks for sale cheap, probably at a hamfest or similar, the typical CPU of the day was a hundred page book but the 432 was an entire bookshelf.
I know there's a marketing product message and we have to "respect" that, however... the impression I had from reading the actual engineering docs (well, glancing and skimming and having heard about it vs looking at the actual documentation) was marketing wanted to SELL an ada/object oriented chip, so they sold it that way, but the actual data sheet showed this was DESIGNED to be the IBM system/360 for the 80s microprocessor generation. Unimaginable list of features most applications would never, ever use. Literally every feature any assembly language programmer could ask for, and then more on top of that.
It seemed too complicated to ever optimize and release a vers 2.0 that's binary compatible. You can imagine, then create, an 8008 version 2, or a 8080 version 2, or a 8086 version 2, or a 6800 version 2 in a logical engineering sense. The 432 was a one-and-done, an evolutionary dead end. Possibly the next one could be smaller process and run slightly faster or use less power. But it was a dead end.
> Literally every feature any assembly language programmer could ask for, and then more on top of that.
I think that one of the key problems with the 432 was that they skipped talking to the assembly language programmers!
The 432 omitted stuff that most assembly language would deem essential (eg registers where I think an assembly language expert would have immediately focused on performance impact) and I think assembly language programming of the 432 would not be fun at all.
Agree 100% that upgrading it would have been a nightmare. I suspect that they simply didn’t have the bandwidth to think about v2.
I used to make similar computers: wire-wrapped things that I'd never do today - 8086, 80186 and twice 2900 bit slices. I was never able to purchase a set of 432 chips. No one had any for sale, or perhaps not for sale to me.
I know there's a marketing product message and we have to "respect" that, however... the impression I had from reading the actual engineering docs (well, glancing and skimming and having heard about it vs looking at the actual documentation) was marketing wanted to SELL an ada/object oriented chip, so they sold it that way, but the actual data sheet showed this was DESIGNED to be the IBM system/360 for the 80s microprocessor generation. Unimaginable list of features most applications would never, ever use. Literally every feature any assembly language programmer could ask for, and then more on top of that.
It seemed too complicated to ever optimize and release a vers 2.0 that's binary compatible. You can imagine, then create, an 8008 version 2, or a 8080 version 2, or a 8086 version 2, or a 6800 version 2 in a logical engineering sense. The 432 was a one-and-done, an evolutionary dead end. Possibly the next one could be smaller process and run slightly faster or use less power. But it was a dead end.