Interest in the topic of microprograrnming appears to have had a great growth in the middle and late 1960's, but since that time it has leveled off or declined somewhat. This paper examines the reasons behind this development and then offers a reconsideration of and a new proposal for the definition of microprogramming.This result is supported by the consideration of three phenomena. First is the evolution of microprogramming during the past twenty years. Second is the evolution in the use of interpretation as an implementation technique. Third is the set of "rules of thumb" resulting from the system designer having to resolve conflicting forces attempting to influence his activity.Five possible meanings of the term microprogramming are considered and rejected totally or in part prior to the one finally offered. The suggestion is made that this redefined concept be avoided as much as possible in the future, and two avenues for research alternatives are encouraged instead.
[1]
Michael J. Flynn,et al.
Microprogramming: An Introduction and a Viewpoint
,
1971,
IEEE Transactions on Computers.
[2]
Caxton C. Foster,et al.
A view of computer architecture
,
1972,
CACM.
[3]
Gerald M. Weinberg,et al.
Psychology of computer programming
,
1971
.
[4]
Robert F. Rosin.
Contemporary Concepts of Microprogramming and Emulation
,
1969,
CSUR.
[5]
Richard H. Eckhouse,et al.
An environment for research in microprogramming and emulation
,
1972,
CACM.
[6]
Saul Rosen,et al.
Programming systems and languages 1965-1975
,
1972,
CACM.
[7]
Maurice V. Wilkes.
The Growth of Interest in Microprogramming: A Literature Survey
,
1969,
CSUR.