Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!indri!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!pro-europa.cts.com!nelson
From: nelson@pro-europa.cts.com (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: P-Systems (was Re: Computer languages on the various Apple Corp
Message-ID: <8905271756.AA29116@crash.cts.com>
Date: 27 May 89 15:25:20 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-europa!nelson@nosc.mil
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 16

att!tellab5!toth@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Joseph G. Toth Jr.)?? proposed a Psystem
concept to develop on the //

I have to really disagree with that concept - P-Systems are horrible. They are
very slow, require a P-system on disk, and are more of a patch for somethign
that should be done in native code. Afterall, the reason we dont use basic is
that we dont WANT to use an interpreted (P-code like) system.

However, it does seem like P-code is the easiest stuff to develop on a //. I
guess the question is, what is the future for a system that REQUIRES P-code to
run higher level languages?

Finally, isnt a toolbox in many ways a p-code system?

nelson@pro-europa.cts.com                                  cogito ergo non sum
...!crash!pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-europa!nelson