>>The point here is that it must be compiled each time it is run. VFP does not do this. Further, the computer science texts that I have studied most certainly make this distinction.
>>
>>No, I don't agree. To clarify: An interpreter compiles at run-time. Threaded p-code, which is what VFP is, does not involve compilation (with the possible exception of macro expansion). That's the distinction. How you arrive at the above statement is beyond me.
>>
>>I think this has gone on long enough. I'm done.
>
>I'm not.
>
>Actually, I've found a reference that supports your position:
>
>It talks about the high hopes held out for interpreters in the years 1948-1952, but for the reasons you mentioned, they became "rare" by 1955-1960. Certain developments are now bringing them back into favor: time-sharing and "micro-programmed control memories" (ie. micro-code).
>
>Encyclopedia of Computer Science (1976).
>
>On the other hand, in "Writing Compilers & Interpreters - An Applied Approach" (Ronald Mak - 1991), the author doesn't skip a beat (in the "Interpreting" section) when he discusses the how and why of creating "intermediate code" (ie. p-code): "... it is no longer a good idea to interpret directly from the source ..." in order to avoid rescanning, parsing and time-consuming syntax and type checking.
>
>I guess I'm choosing to take a more "contemporary" view.

Gerry;

To me, in the field of technology I define "contemporary" as that which occured today. I know it will all change before I get up tomorrow morning!

Tom