Re: Interpreter for old basic programs from the line number era

On Mar 18, 11:41 pm, Eric <englere_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 6:18 pm, winston19842005 <bjjlya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3/18/08 3:52 PM, in article
> > Xns9A65A9BDEA2B5SnarkCharmedImS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 "Charmed Snark"
>
> > <sn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Eric expounded in news:f1e8dd88-0800-4725-98ee-8ad4fa188ee5
> > > @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > >> On Mar 6, 5:26 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:
> > >>>> There's Cheesecake BASIC V 3 that does.
> > >>>>http://noktosoft.megafolio.com/
>
> > >>> Now that is cool! "Cheesecake BASIC is written in BASIC, and
> > >>> can be compiled with the PowerBasic Console Compiler (2.0 or
> > >>> above), with QuickBASIC 4.5, or with Cheesecake BASIC V3"
> > > ..
>
> > >> Remember that the term Virtual Machine is just a fancy term that
means
> > >> the runtime interpreter that executes the p-code instructions.
"cvm"
> > >> is the Cheesecake virtual machine. Once this is compiled it is
called
> > >> the "RTL".
> > > ..
>
> > >> Eric
>
> > > Interesting reading.
>
> > > WRT to VMs, I've always found that term, at least in its modern
usage, to
> > > be a bit of a "marketing amusement". GW-Basic for example, also
> > > interpreted its own "tokenised program format" a long time ago:
>
> > >   seehttp://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/GW-BASIC-tokens.html
>
> > > Many other interpreted basics do something similar. I am also sure
that
> > > there were many many earlier examples of this technique.
>
> > > Wikipedia states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine)
that
> > > the term was "originally defined by Popek and Goldberg as an
efficient,
> > > isolated duplicate of a real machine. Current use includes virtual
> > > machines which have no direct correspondence to any real hardware."
>
> > > I can't recall if JVM was based on any real hardware. I seem to
recall
> > > Sun was making some noise about JVM hardware at one time. But I
suspect
> > > that in Java's case, Java byte code came long before any real
hardware
> > > ever existed.
>
> > Google UCSD Pascal. It was byte-code, for a virtual machine. UCSD
Pascal
> > involved porting an interpreter written to each processor. The
environment
> > (OS) was written in itself. It compiled to p-code (one of the first
uses of
> > this terminology).
>
> Yes, although UCSD wasn't the first Pascal compiler to use p-code it
> was the most popular by far. It used an especially compact variation
> that was well suited for 8-bit CPUS.
>
> There's a Yahoo group for UCSD Pascal and they've managed to dig up
> much, or all, of the UCSD source code for several different versions.
> They also have a linux runtime interpreter that run real UCSD p-code
> programs.
>
> > If you Google Java, you will often find references to UCSD Pascal.
>
> The JVM is cool. The earlier versions were even hobbiest friendly. But
> it has gotten way to complicated now. I looked at the source Sun
> released, and it's a monster!
>
> I made a web page on a nice small version of the JVM called NanoVM:
>
> http://www.EricEngler.com/NanoVM.aspx
>
> > And there was a version of UCSD Pascal (III) that was implemented in
> > hardware.
>
> The Western Digital Micro Engine port. It was too expensive :-(

Sir, you have a better memory than I. I did remember it was Western
Digital, but could not remember the name.

I also recall the earlier Pascal compilers that used p-code, that UCSD
was based upon. But cannot remember the name. I have the source to it
somewhere.

P2 & P4, ETH Zurich from Google ring many bells. I have all the PUG
(Pascal Users Groups) manuals in PDF format, and have read them cover
to cover.

I will check out your page on the NanoVM JVM. Yes, it has become a
monster...