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-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!193.190.198.58.MISMATCH!aotearoa.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.net.uni-c.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
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>
 <Xns9D479CC401C07WarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.245>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:54:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Organization: Martin Krischik, Softwareentwicklung
Message-ID: <op.u9958tkwz25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.10 (MacIntel)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 89.236.173.67
X-Trace: news.sunsite.dk
 DXC=CH\JeWdiKB_07<M:5AA`SVYSB=nbEKnk[DST5d:9M3DSIDiY_4:UK?Sd3N<Hj?FVI^>ai^>E:QM5T\dF5egYh5MQ\8KCkD1SBcX
X-Complaints-To: staff@sunsite.dk
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9797
Date: 2010-03-28T15:54:19+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Am 26.03.2010, 19:24 Uhr, schrieb Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>:

> 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.

I make it simple for you:

Pascal: language, not interpreted
UCSD-Pascal, language *implementation*, interpreted.

As you say: you have to be specific.

Martin

-- 
Martin Krischik