Talk:PDP-14

Short description?

@Macrakis: Why exactly did you revert my edit to the short description? The given reason '"control CPU and system" is too low-level a description' makes no sense -- "low level" in what way? Also, you're missing the "Industrial" from the reverted short description. The original description, "Industrial controller from Digital" violates the convention of generality and is stylistically incorrect, eg. what is the general reader supposed to make of "Digital"? "DEC" maybe, but just "Digital"? And as I just mentioned, even using "Digital" alone or replacing it by "DEC" or "D.E.C." would be confusing and non-general and not in the style of the vast majority of short descriptions of ISAs, CPUs / microprocessors and other computer systems on Wikipedia.

Also, why was the "Notes" section added back, when it was originally added for a footnote describing why the PDP-14 "stack" is not a "stack"? As it is now, the "Notes" section is unneeded due to the removal of the references to "stack" and the footnote -- it's empty and makes the page very ugly.

I'll go ahead and change it back. Jdbtwo (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrakis: Also, if you consider "Industrial controller from Digital" then, ignoring the stylistically incorrect "from Digital" which seems a bit meaningless and which goes against the convention of most other Wikipedia CPU articles, then you're left with just "Industrial controller", which IMO is too vague.

Would you be satisfied with "Industrial control processor and system" instead? ( and which is only 39 characters ) Jdbtwo (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding the Notes section was an error, sorry.

Don't worry about it :)

I don't understand why you describe it as a "CPU" or "processor". After all, the article lead describes it as a "specialized computer", and every computer contains a CPU. On the other hand, "system" seems too broad. "Industrial controller" or "Industrial control computer" seems more apt.

I'm OK with "Industrial control computer" if you are.

The logic behind my including "CPU" or "processor" is due to the description of the PDP-14 as a whole in which "The system's configuration included a control unit and a number of external boxes." ie. the "system" ( PDP-14 ) was a combination of a control unit / CPU and other discrete units ( boxes, described in article ) which it needed to function.

I'm not sure what's wrong with "from Digital". The company went by just Digital in the later years (not DEC). Would you prefer "by"? --Macrakis (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, IMO, is not really including "Digital" but the fact that it goes against the convention of the short descriptions of Wikipedia computer / computer science articles being general. Also, if the character limit was significantly greater than 40 then I'd prefer "manufactured by D.E.C.", but, just "from/by Digital/DEC" seems vague and and lacking in style -- with a 40-character limit I just think that trying to shoehorn "D.E.C." into it in some way seems ugly and/or clumsy.

Anyway, I've changed the short description to "Industrial control computer"

"CPU" is just wrong. The PDP-14 contains lots of things other than a CPU, namely ROM, I/O units, software, etc. And as the article says, different models even had different ISAs. So I think "industrial controller" is the correct level of description. --Macrakis (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my version of the short description implied that the PDP-14, *as a whole*, was just a "CPU." As I described earlier, I included "system" to cover all the other discrete functional blocks of the, well, system :) Jdbtwo (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the manufacturer in the SD is useful because -- unlike most computer models (IBM 360, CDC 7600, Apple II) -- the article title does not include it (same for other PDP-XX). Similarly, the SD for the TRS-80 mentions its manufacturer; TSS (operating system) mentions that it's for IBM mainframes. (I recently edited those, but both included the manufacturer's name before my edit.) --Macrakis (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll concede the point -- I've added "by DEC" to the SD.

Re "CPU", part of the problem is that it implies that the PDP-14 as a whole is a CPU.

I meant it to describe the PDP-14 as a CPU along with a number of other functional units as part of the entire digital logic controller system.

The other problem is that it is talking about how it is made, not what it is. Would you describe an HP-35 as a "microprocessor and system"?

I think you're mixing terminology here : The PDP-14 is described as a "system" ( in the article ) owing to the fact that it requires other discrete ( and large ) functional units to operate. I tried to accurately and concisely describe the "what it is" w.r.t. the PDP-14. If you think there's ambiguity, it should be absent in the new short description.

No, of course not: it functions as a calculator, even though it contains a microprocessor. --Macrakis (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the SD, in your version and in mine, both contain "Industrial control..." which indicates what the whole system does -- its primary purpose. The HP-35's primary purpose is to function as a scientific calculator, which is indicated in its SD. Jdbtwo (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]