From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:34:13 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <3b3f991b-8fcd-435c-83f6-e1a1a5e8f6ed@a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com> References: <7a0c7a19-5d83-4cc6-be68-95ebf41533e7@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1269380053 4827 127.0.0.1 (23 Mar 2010 21:34:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:34:13 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9715 Date: 2010-03-23T14:34:13-07:00 List-Id: On Mar 23, 1:27=A0pm, "John B. Matthews" wrote: > In article > <7a0c7a19-5d83-4cc6-be68-95ebf4153...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>, > > =A0cbcurl wrote: > > since when was Pascal ever an interpreted language > > AFAIK, ca. 1977, . I wouldn't call it an interpreted language, really. The UCSD compiler generated code for a machine that didn't exist, and then programs ran by interpreting that machine's instructions. However, my recollection is that the pseudo-machine's instruction set really didn't have anything to do with Pascal and could have been used for any language. A few years later, Western Digital developed a machine that executed the P-machine's instructions directly (in microcode). The lab I worked for back in college (at UC Irvine) used this compiler, and we had one of the WD machines also, so this is something I'm quite familiar with, as far as the deteriorating brain cells of my memory permit. This doesn't meet my criteria for what I'd call an interpreted language. For that, I'd assume that the interpreter reads the original source statements, or some sort of tokenized form that bears a close relation to the original source statements, while running the program. I'd also assume that variables and other identifiers are stored by name, or by something equivalent such as a pointer into a string table, but that in any case the interpreter does things "by name". In contrast, I believe that UCSD Pascal allocated local stack variables pretty much the same way a native compiler would, referencing them via byte or word offsets from the top or bottom of a stack frame, although it's been a really long time so I could be wrong here. -- Adam