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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no 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-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.71.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder3.xlned.com!feeder.erje.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:24:38 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <Xns9D479CC401C07WarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.245>
References: 
 <7a0c7a19-5d83-4cc6-be68-95ebf41533e7@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>
 <nospam-116295.16271923032010@news.aioe.org>
 <3b3f991b-8fcd-435c-83f6-e1a1a5e8f6ed@a31g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 <nospam-E19D5A.22083823032010@news.aioe.org>
 <Xns9D4573E5A41F9WarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.245>
 <bf27602c-09c5-45e4-97c1-608bf9729cbb@s2g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 <op.u950lqpyz25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:24:38 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: feeder.eternal-september.org;
	logging-data="31529"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mC5v1yvq87zoGJCXiCvNF/JKl4zuyoRw="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Face: 
 &6@]C2>ZS=NM|HE-^zWuryN#Z/2_.s9E|G&~DRi|sav9{E}XQJb*\_>=a5"q]\%A;5}LKP][1mA{gZ,Q!j
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HAB6mGA6SF6KVgrN6mH0aVvYMEc=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9785
Date: 2010-03-26T19:24:38+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Krischik expounded in
news:op.u950lqpyz25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com: 

> Am 24.03.2010, 17:57 Uhr, schrieb Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>:
> 
>> 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".
> 
> My personal definition is that a language is interpreted if the
> majority  of implementations use an interpreter. And Pascal would not
> be among the  list.
> 
> Martin

I still maintain you need to be specific about it. I will 
agree that they all were not interpreted. But at the same 
time it is equally wrong to imply that they were all compiled.

Warren