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: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!s2g2000prd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <bf27602c-09c5-45e4-97c1-608bf9729cbb@s2g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
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>
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 1269449866 28178 127.0.0.1 (24 Mar 2010 16:57:46
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:57:46 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: s2g2000prd.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: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10713
Date: 2010-03-24T09:57:46-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mar 24, 8:23=A0am, 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>,
> > =A0Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 23, 1:27=A0pm, "John B. Matthews" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote=
:
> >> > In article
> >> > <7a0c7a19-5d83-4cc6-be68-95ebf4153...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> > =A0cbcurl <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. =A0The UCSD
> >> compiler generated code for a machine that didn't exist, and then
> >> programs ran by interpreting that machine's instructions. =A0
>
> -------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I smell an interpreter!
>
> >> This doesn't meet my criteria for what I'd call an interpreted
> >> language. =A0For 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. =A0
>
> 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