From:	tstcroix AT ix DOT netcom DOT com
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Interpreted languages.
Date:	Mon, 02 Jun 1997 12:58:14 -0400
Organization:	Netcom
Lines:	33
Message-ID:	<3392FBA6.2E19@ix.netcom.com>
References:	<199706011608 DOT LAA07010 AT sendit DOT sendit DOT NoDak DOT edu> <339213E4 DOT 15095DE8 AT alcyone DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	pon-mi7-16.ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Erik Max Francis wrote:
> 
> Adam W Lee wrote:
> 
> > Not really, go read up on http://www.intel.com..  I was looking into
> > good
> > methods for P2 assembly, and according to one of the pages I read, the
> > P2
> > is basically a RISC chip which has to interpret the dinosaur 80x86
> > assembly in order to maintain backwards compatibility.
> 
> Yes, but the processor can directly accept 80x86 instructions.  That
> definitely makes it machine language, and thus turning source code into
> 80x86 machine language is definitely "compiling."
> 
> --
>        Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / email / max AT alcyone DOT com
>                      Alcyone Systems /   web / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> San Jose, California, United States /  icbm / 37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W
>                                    \
>      "Covenants without the sword / are but words."
>                                  / Camden

At what level of complexity does a microprocessor cease being a
microprocessor?
Let's pick nits...
When designers moved away from strict, combinatorial logic and started
using
microcode, all machine code from that point on was interpreted...they
became
true 'computers on a chip' complete with their own interpreter in rom.

tim

- Raw text -