Yeah, p-code. That was what it was called. Ran like crap on an Apple IIe.
I may still have the iAPX 432 POP-equivalent in a box somewhere. It was an interesting concept but alas turned into another one of those dead-ends. Maybe Intel or someone will resurrect the concept. In any case, I'm not impressed with the speed of Java versus compiled code on Windoze boxes. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Wednesday July 19 2006 12:42 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor? > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 7:00 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Why is zSeries so CPU poor? > > > >UCSD Pascal. It created and ran byte code. It was slower than > > It was called p-code. > IIRC, didn't one of the JAVA 'inventors' have something to do with > p-code development? > > Also, at one time wasn't it called j-code? Since we are recalling the past, IIRC there was some CPU designed and manufactured to natively execute p-code. It didn't really make a very good showing in the market. To be totally off topic: I really liked what I read about the Intel iAPX 432. Built from the ground up to be object oriented only. http://www.sasktelwebsite.net/jbayko/cpu7.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
