From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 21960 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2022 18:08:06 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 30 Jan 2022 18:08:06 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 53B349D0B6; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:08:04 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939AF9B8E4; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:07:32 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="o8lcKIdk"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2BE809B8E4; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:07:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f50.google.com (mail-vs1-f50.google.com [209.85.217.50]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B22E9B6B1 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2022 04:07:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vs1-f50.google.com with SMTP id t20so9175839vsq.12 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:07:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=29S9q0UWW8qK0Vi5VRWa7uVKSOUzTyD6yXx3XlgsY2c=; b=o8lcKIdkAig1T+iwdtvii5V6gry9RhG9WsEHquPT4AJDsyyG3zUSmjEy/Ps+oZz885 oaYbxieNiWEBrpXBHojF18Q/GFp+ftELocoWKr9iUpzIycGwITMKqMrm3gSTC1/vPB9w UoFJiruR8TcL3MqnyGy0GAFRF/fTJUXFgb7jm5gmt+lyb50a5Y2fFlYeG19Fd5dHgjR0 D6O6NxSvSLXyc7ObD2wKwzVeRTBY2HhbNDA7trs8MO7Tmp8rRQ7vqS2U6xlQYQRg7Iht RPwaQ4Aklr6vb9I7+gznVdATiz4NIcmCHI9w4ivXzEtmu3K/nt9tbus5uTq+HR81NG7I TItw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=29S9q0UWW8qK0Vi5VRWa7uVKSOUzTyD6yXx3XlgsY2c=; b=BquluRLniLJIJRvjR7uvRxJINuK4bDf8Vt20ru+8lFqINoIe96Mxzeb09JjPnn/kX7 2Eyz+3y5+9CR19k019mwlBgtjj+ASp2B9z6IO3E2a7E2Nzla/CqYwx12UWLfMNWe/lgb q/orKfnewZI7p9M1XHdpnkMRORjN1TbVlRqw+BuhODCt0OCodTkYedYITJXmwLF8N2Lu 4ffArnUe9hIi8BAOQBkWpOr2tsYJeZVDgEqB8Hyh6MJ+gek4N015z8IPxkxi9XKDvPoc NxwE3auCDrtRJZLVe0ySOiFOYk1S4JXFdlLUnrYotA/N4ZCXH0V8XalZrHM3FQo5gyyl n00A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NyzPuR8Tviy1JXHIR+mHZvV11ewjm0YeNIWb6ecssG6StqNEl lnU52qbaGgWCSzRm7+cl6OvvmIK2NLvMFq41KfegYCOv X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWDAOs8jUObKlrjxjlGUh+ojmo9GnAqAKHfTRBXkTPqljgI7+3nXksxVot2q7LKuWCmhQWla2qHacyTah8oFg= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fc52:: with SMTP id p18mr6733064vsq.67.1643566047030; Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:07:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0f83f174-eeca-30fb-7b98-77fb0da80f2e@gmail.com> <9E47A62E-3AAD-491E-9164-3DCAD22EC1F7@kdbarto.org> In-Reply-To: <9E47A62E-3AAD-491E-9164-3DCAD22EC1F7@kdbarto.org> From: Dan Stromberg Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:07:15 -0800 Message-ID: To: TUHS main list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000065f0dc05d6d08a21" Subject: [TUHS] Compilation "vs" byte-code interpretation, was Re: Looking back to 1981 - what pascal was popular on what unix? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000065f0dc05d6d08a21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 8:58 AM David Barto wrote: > Yes, the UCSD P-code interpreter was ported to 4.1 BSD on the VAX and it > ran natively there. I used it on sdcsvax in my senior year (1980). > This reminds me of a question I've had percolating in the back of my mind. Was USCD Pascal "compiled" or "interpreted" or both? And is Java? They both have a byte code interpreter. Yes, modern Java is JIT-compiled, but does that make Java a compiled language in the Oracle implementation, or is it an interpreter with a pretty good runtime? Wasn't Java referred to as "compiled" even back before the JIT compiler was added? Granted, gcj is compiled. But Oracle's implementation of Java is commonly referred to as a "Compiler". And what about back before Java's JIT compiler was added - ISTR recall Java was referred to as a compiled language before the JIT addition. And then there's the CPython implementation of Python. It too uses a byte code interpreter, but it's commonly referred to as "interpreted". But is it really? Granted, it has an implicit, cached compilation step, but is it less compiled for that? Is there consistency here? --00000000000065f0dc05d6d08a21 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 8:58 AM David Bar= to <david@kdbarto.org> wrote= :
Yes, the UCSD P-code interpreter was ported to = 4.1 BSD on the VAX and it ran natively there. I used it on sdcsvax in my se= nior year (1980).

This reminds me of = a question I've had percolating in the back of my mind.

<= /div>
Was USCD Pascal "compiled" or "interpreted" o= r both?

And is Java?=C2=A0 They both have a byte c= ode interpreter.=C2=A0 Yes, modern Java is JIT-compiled, but does that make= Java a compiled language in the Oracle implementation, or is it an interpr= eter with a pretty good runtime?=C2=A0 Wasn't Java referred to as "= ;compiled" even back before the JIT compiler was added?=C2=A0 Granted,= gcj is compiled.=C2=A0 But Oracle's implementation of Java is commonly= referred to as a "Compiler".=C2=A0 And what about back before Ja= va's JIT compiler was added - ISTR recall Java was referred to as a com= piled language before the JIT addition.

And th= en there's the CPython implementation of Python.=C2=A0 It too uses a by= te code interpreter, but it's commonly referred to as "interpreted= ".=C2=A0 But is it really?=C2=A0 Granted, it has an implicit, cached c= ompilation step, but is it less compiled for that?

Is there consistency here?

--00000000000065f0dc05d6d08a21--