On Feb 3, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Peter wrote:

>>  Isn't the original Basic Stamp squeezed
>> into a 16C54?  (although I suspect that was a rather impressive
>> feat of programming...)
>
> It's not so hard. It's was a token threaded language so ... but the
> newer stamp basics are not token threaded and would NOT fit in there.

The interpreter on the PIC is written in a token threaded language as
well?  In particular, I remember a comment on the basic stamp list;
apparently someone didn't understand why parallax wasn't upset that
some PIC Book author had published assembly language routines to
implement each of the StampBasic language functions.  Some smiled
and mentioned that that was ok, cause they didn't all fit in a PIC
anyway...
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist