[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:44:43AM -0700, Darren New wrote:
BTW, before the term "bytecodes" there was "p-code", for "pseudo-code".
And the VM was called the "p-machine". So we already have a better
term.
I agree. I like "pseudocode". I can go for that.
OK everyone....JVMs run pseudocode.
No, pseudocode already has a well-defined meaning.
Probably this came out of the fact that they really wanted to call it
something like "opcodes", but that one *also* has a well defined meaning.
In fact, we already have several well defined terms for this, "assembly
language" certainly fits as does "instruction set".
However, they aren't as pithy as "bytecode". And "bytecode" now has a
well defined meaning of "instruction set for a virtual machine."
-a
--
KPLUG-LPSG@kernel-panic.org
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
