Noplock, Norman F. wrote: > > In my opinion the pic and JAVA were made for each other. The reduced > intruction set of JAVA was conceived and developed primarily so it could > reside using very little real estate. So yes I for one see a great future > for JAVA and pic. OK, let me see. Typical Java byte code interpreters run to maybe 40KB, and add anything between a 1KB and 1MB for the application code. The use of standard class libraries is going to make development a lot easier, but just look at the size of these libraries... I thing my JVM 1.16 has a few MB of libraries. The Java byte code isn't particularly space-efficient for something as small as a PIC, and also has lots and lots and lots of things that you don't need. IHMO, things like the basic stamp is the logical way of doing things (even though I wouldn't want to be seen dead trying to flog a basic application to a client) -- lean interpreter, allowing for user token extensions etc. Dunno whether the basic stamp uses just tokenized basic (silly) or something more like a stack-based system (proper). Frank ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Frank A. Vorstenbosch Mobile: +44-976-430 569 Wimbledon, London SW19 Home: +44-181-544 1865 frank@falstaff.demon.co.uk Office: +44-181-636 3391