Talk:Programmable Array Logic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Programmable array logic)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Electronics (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Programmable Array Logic" not "Programmable array logic"[edit]

I propose changing the capitalization of the title to "Programmable Array Logic", per naming conventions. "Programmable Array Logic" is a proper noun (though "programmable logic device", a broader term, is not); it was also a trademark of MMI. Johnlogic 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The first PALs[edit]

I reverted (talk · contribs)'s edits because they are possibly wrong and his other edits are POVed and possibly sneaky vandalism. The one source I found said that MMI had the first not IBM. However, I don't know enough of the topic to make clear call either way. --metta, The Sunborn 19:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you don't know enough about the topic. First: IBM but not for sale to the public, Second: Signetics FPLA's, Third: MMI PAL's(tm)

MMI PAL patent, enjoy:,124,899.WKU.&OS=PN/4,124,899&RS=PN/4,124,899

AND and OR[edit]

How come AND and OR gates are so fundamental to PALs and other electronical structures, as it is mentioned in this article? Thanks, Abdull

It's a Logic Array as opposed to a Memory Array. AND and OR is logic. IBM invented them and has the first patents.

The AND, OR, and NOT logic gates are fundamental to all digital circuits because any possible digital circuits can be built out of a pile of AND, OR, and NOT gates (if properly interconnected).

That's one of the reason people are so excited when some new technology can implent the otherwise obscure "NOR gate". With a few NOR gates, one can implement AND, OR, and NOT gates. And that's exciting because any possible digital circuit can be built out of AND, OR, and NOT gates. (For example, the Apollo Guidance Computer was built entirely out of NOR gates).

Teachers start with AND, OR, and NOT because they are easier to explain to English-speaking students than NAND and NOR.

--DavidCary 15:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

PLD and PAL history[edit]

I will be adding a few items to this article from my book.

Pellerin, David; Holley, Michael (1991). Practical Design Using Programmable Logic. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-723834-7.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)

I release these contributions to Wikipedia to the public domain.

I worked at Data I/O Corp on programmable logic from 1981 to 1997. I was fortunate to meet and work with the most of the pioneers in this field. I was on the development team for the ABEL programming language.

Feel free to correct my grammar and spelling.

Michael Holley SWTPC6800 02:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

More on ABEL?[edit]

Michael, Would you please contribute what you can on ABEL? My knowledge of ABEL is limited to knowing of its existence, as most of my PLD work was with CUPL. Thanks. Johnlogic 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Device Programmers[edit]

Would the following be acceptable for this article?

Two of the very first PAL Programmers were the Structured Design SD-10 and "SD20". They had the PALASM software built-in and only required a CRT terminal to enter the equations, fuze and verify the part. Dmercado (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


I remember the company ICT as Integrated Circuit Technology. Dmercado (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


This article is called "Programmable Array Logic" but describes Generic array logic: GAL has OLMCs, while only few PAL devices has. You can verify it searching with google: [1],[2], [3],[4]. Common's category's wrong too. ^musaz 22:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)