> > On 01/01/2011 10:03 PM, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> >
> >> Whatever happened to P-code (for pascal), anyway?  It seems (?) that
> >> interpreters in general have advanced in the relatively recent past;
> >> were there enough advantages in the p-code runtime environment to
> >> think about doing that again, or have the (older) advances made in
> >> compiler technology made it uninteresting anyway?  (I never noticed
> >> whether P-code added run-time capabilities to a typical CPU, or was
> >> just a crutch so people wouldn't have to write code generators.)
> >
> > Odd you should mention it, I've been thinking about doing a BASIC
> > stamp like environment for a few networked uCs. So far I've not
> > gotten past taking a look at some tokenizers and wondering if this
> > is such a good idea.
> >
>=20
> Wasn't the p-code idea to give portability?=20

Yeah, UCSD Pascal was the one that proclaimed P-Code as the 'new way' and h=
ad versions for C/PM compatible machines, and I think a 6800 based machine.=
 Then along came the IBM PC, and everyone said 'I already have the developm=
ent system for my C/PM compatible, I just want to purchase the runtime modu=
le for the IBM PC' and UCSD said 'No to get that you need to purchase the w=
hole development system for the PC' which made it an instant Lead Balloon (=
TM). I don't know how long UCSD Pascal kept going, but that was a prime mis=
take on their part.
--=20
Scanned by iCritical.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.