Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!sceard!mrm
From: mrm@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IBM RISC System/6000  AS/400 (actually a diversion on the topic)
Message-ID: <4129@sceard.Sceard.COM>
Date: 6 Mar 90 16:37:08 GMT
References: <10901@june.cs.washington.edu> <2984@auspex.auspex.com> <10947@june.cs.washington.edu> <2989@auspex.auspex.com>
Reply-To: mrm@Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy)
Organization: Sceard Systems, Inc.  San Marcos, CA  92069
Lines: 21

In article <2989@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes
of IMPI [details omitted for brevity, the soul of wit...]
>So you then think of System/38 and AS/400 as being a set of machines
>with potentially binary-incompatible instruction sets, but that all run
>compatible interpreters/MI compilers....  Perhaps this is sort of like
>moving Smalltalk bytecodes between different machines with different
>underlying processors.

If it walks like an interpreter, sounds like an interpreter, and has feet
like an interpreter, it's an interpreter. I like EDL, myself :-)

Seems to me that it doesn't matter much where the interpreter lives, if it
results in more time spent to process data, then it's slower, and, therefore,
more costly. Blatant tautology time. Then again cost to someone is income to
someone else.

Having stated the thought in the paragraph above, are there interpreters,
hard, firm, or soft, that result in reduced processing times? Just curious.
--
Mike Murphy  Sceard Systems, Inc.  544 South Pacific St. San Marcos, CA  92069
mrm@Sceard.COM        {hp-sdd,nosc,ucsd,uunet}!sceard!mrm      +1 619 471 0655