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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

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