Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?

[Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2316 bytes --]

Adam Beneschan expounded in
news:bf27602c-09c5-45e4-97c1-608bf9729cbb@s2g2000prd.googlegroups.com: 

> On Mar 24, 8:23�am, Warren <ve3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John B. Matthews expounded in news:nospam-E19D5A.22083823032010
>> @news.aioe.org:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article
>> > <3b3f991b-8fcd-435c-83f6-e1a1a5e8f...@a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> > �Adam Beneschan <a...@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.co
>> >> > m>, 
>>
>> >> > �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.
> 
> So it's executed by an interpreter.  That doesn't make the *language*
> compiled into p-code an INTERPRETED LANGUAGE, which is what we were
> talking about---not any old "interpreter".
> 
>                                       -- Adam

So by your definition, my "tokenized basic" isn't interpreted either?
It saves as an intermediate byte code also. So did GWBASIC IIRC. But 
nobody would say that GWBASIC wasn't interpreted.

Sorry, but if any "execution" requires the help of an interpreter,
it is "interpreted" at some level(s), even in Java's case.

Now if the O/S could load and hand control over control to the 
loaded code (exec) without involving a separate process, then 
that would be different. Otherwise, I still smell an interpreted
"language".

Warren