I would have to question a byte-code interpreter as a general fix-all for development. In theory you can sell a lot of chips (boards) with this byte-code interpreter burned into the processor, but ultimately developers are going to want the advantages of a compiler which goes directly the basic machine language. Yes, I have seen the old P-code Pascal implementations, which did work rather well. And there are Basic systems (I remember HP basic) which ran as an interpreter during development and allowed doing a compile when you were (mostly) satisfied with your code. I don't mean to be negative here - maybe I just don't understand where you see the advantage in the byte-code system? Roy J. Gromlich ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Jay Newman" To: Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [PIC]: Any one interested in developing a Open Source stamp c lone using 16F87X > > Unless I were seriously constrained by $money$ I would do all development > > for the 18C 18F series. > > Agreed. > > However, if you're going for an open-source "stamp", you might as well > make it an open-source byte-code interpreter. That way people can write > compilers for BASIC, Forth, Java, whatever. > > *If* the bytecode interpreter is made general enough it should be able > to cover most languages. LISP on a PIC anyone? :) > > Seriously, I'd be interested in helping to design such a bytecode > interpreter. > > I'd also like to see it licensed in such a way that commercial sources > could sell this so that not everybody would need a programmer to use > it. > -- > D. Jay Newman ! > jay@sprucegrove.com ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy. > http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! > > -- > http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! > email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body