User talk:Syboxez
If replying on your talk page is incorrect then I apologise. But to respond: no, don't worry, I would never tick my own emulator as recommended. I saw that it had been added to the ZX81 page by Francis so I concluded that it was acceptable to list it on the Wiki. I took it as given that it was therefore appropriate to list it under as many machines as it currently emulates rather than the one (i.e. it didn't seem like the threshold for being listed depended on the machine). Self-marking it as recommended though struck me as grossly improper. If the test is 'would its own author recommend it?' then you would probably need to tick almost every box.
I was curious whether there was a specific known issue or issues, but I thought it was probably more likely that not recommended means literally just that, and not necessarily deficient. That's fair enough.
I will contribute to the emulation accuracy page immediately, but the principle is fairly simple: just going one step beyond cycle accuracy, some chips are defined to do something observable on a rising clock and something else observable on a falling clock. So if you only allow one action per a cycle then you're going to have to do one of those actions at the wrong time, which can be observable. Less compellingly, some machines include analogue components and discretely approximating those at greater than cycle resolution can be appropriate.
I haven't tested my emulator in Windows with MingW because I also do not use Windows. But also it isn't really set up to work there. For UNIX machines it's an SDL app that expects interaction via the command line or through something that can provide the same input since that seems to be normative, and goes hunting underneath /usr for system ROMs, etc. On the Mac it's a native Cocoa application using that operating system's idiomatic document model. So you'll have to jump through a bunch of hoops even to be able to use it from the command line. On Windows I would imagine it should be more like the latter than the former, but I've not yet looked into it. Either way, I expect it'll be an independent set of code because the user expectations are different. — Tommy (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2018 (EST)
Oops, forgot also to add: I was so sensitive to not using this wiki for self promotion that I also declined to establish a page for my emulator, as I think I lack objectivity. Give me a shout if that was the wrong call, e.g. if it's better to have *something* that other editors can rationalise rather than *nothing*. Otherwise I'll continue thinking this is correct, that if the emulator is ever notable then it will acquire a page, but while it isn't you don't want everybody who just about manages to get something to compile running in here and writing odes to themselves. — Tommy (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2018 (EST)
