John B. Matthews expounded in news:nospam-E19D5A.22083823032010
@news.aioe.org:

> In article 
> <3b3f991b-8fcd-435c-83f6-e1a1a5e8f6ed@a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>  Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 23, 1:27 pm, "John B. Matthews" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <7a0c7a19-5d83-4cc6-be68-95ebf4153...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
>> >
>> >  cbcurl <cbc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > since when was Pascal ever an interpreted language
>> >
>> > AFAIK, ca. 1977, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCSD_Pascal>.
>> 
>> 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.  
-------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^

I smell an interpreter!

>> 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.  

That's a pretty narrow view.

Usually ppl talk of "interpreted" vs "native code execution".
It would be incorrect IMO to call p-code natively executed
code.

Warren