On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, William Chops Westfield wrote:

> 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...

I don't know about that but the kind of (open source) basic that would 
fit in a 16F84's internal EEPROM was certainly token-threaded. Almost 64 
program steps ! Anyway extending this to an external EEPROM was trivial. 
I suppose that the smilie (sp?) was from someone who had actual 
knowledge of the implementation.

Peter
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist