Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!dlyons
From: dlyons@Apple.COM (David Lyons)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: P-Systems (was Re: Computer languages on the various Apple Corp
Message-ID: <31982@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 30 May 89 17:35:25 GMT
References: <8905271756.AA29116@crash.cts.com>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 23

In article <8905271756.AA29116@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-nsfmat!pro-europa!nelson@nosc.mil writes:
[...]
>Finally, isnt a toolbox in many ways a p-code system?

Nope.  At least not any more than a subroutine library is.

BTW, I don't object to "lumping" P-code systems in with interpreted BASICs.
While Applesoft BASIC does do more run-time stuff (searching for lines by
number when you GOTO them and searching for variable entries in a table,
for example) than the UCSD P-system does, it doesn't *have* to be that way.
There's no reason an interpreted BASIC couldn't have the RUN command go through
and pre-compute the location of teach line & the address of each variable &
store it into the code.  And there's no reason a P-code Pascal couldn't do
slow searches for variables if it really wanted to.

 --Dave Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc.          |   DAL Systems
   AppleLink--Apple Edition: DAVE.LYONS      |   P.O. Box 875
   AppleLink--Personal Edition: Dave Lyons   |   Cupertino, CA 95015-0875
   GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS         CompuServe: 72177,3233
   Internet/BITNET:  dlyons@apple.com    UUCP:  ...!ames!apple!dlyons

   My opinions are my own, not Apple's.