Talk:John Harrison Wharton

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Intel (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intel, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.IntelWikipedia:WikiProject IntelTemplate:WikiProject IntelIntel articles

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Creator of this article[edit]

I did not create this page. I simply copied it from a draft, added a few categories, and made some minor format changes. The entire original article was written by User:DavidSHRosenthal.--Toploftical (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wharton's contribution to MCS-51[edit]

I'm grateful for Toploftical's help. Here's some background on one of the changes in question, from "architected" to "designed" in reference to Wharton's contribution to the Intel MCS-51.

I think the change is strictly correct, in that MCS-51 refers to a series of compatible products, not just to the original 8051. The belief is that John's work was the instruction set and the functional block structure of the chip, others did the detailed design, chip layout, etc. as described in the Computer History Museum Oral History Panel. A lay person reading "Wharton designed" would likely come away with an exaggerated idea of John's contribution but its hard to see how to explain that without getting deep in the weeds. DavidSHRosenthal (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]