> Unless I suppose one chooses to be very nit-picky and claim
> that machine code is interpreted by the instruction decoder
> section ofa cpu.

Which, indeed, is precisely the case on modern CPUs. In particular on
so-called "x86" CPUs the internal interpretation is totally different from
what you see in the "instruction set". So, heck, if even assembler code is
interpreted these days, why would we bother ;)

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tim Rowledge
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:36 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [OT] C++ and Smalltalk fun
> 
> 
> "Thomas A Petersen" <tpeterse at csc.com> wrote:
> 
> > I looked upon Smalltalk with some skepticism because it is 
> interpreted
> No, it isn't. It's compiled. The compiled code may be executed by
> simulation, interpretation, custom hardware or translation to other
> formats but none of that makes the language 'interpreted'. Unless I
> suppose one chooses to be very nit-picky and claim that 
> machine code is
> interpreted by the instruction decoder section ofa cpu.
> 
> tim
> --
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Useful random insult:- On permanent leave of absence from his senses.
>