Basic Stamp: interpreted vs compiled

KenLem

·Can anybody explain why the Basic on a Basic Stamp is an interpreted and not compiled?· The only advantage I can see is that the runtime interpreter can be ported to different platforms easier than adding a new target to a compiler.· Tokenizing can't be more effecient than compiling, right?

I should point out that I'm just curious.· I'm more than happy with Stamps the way they are.

Post Edited (KenLem) : 8/19/2004 8:03:19 PM GMT

K de Jong

Yes, it is an interesting question.

To find the answer you may have to go back over a decade, to the early 90's, when the Stamp BS1 was invented. In that time compiling BASIC was not common, and to stay backwards compatible it stayed interpreted.

That may be why.

But there may be other reasons too, of course.

Regards,

Klaus

kyaw swar

·I WANT LEARN ABOUT MICROCONTROLLER AND BASIC STAMP BUT I DO NOT HAVE MONEY FOR BUY THE SOFTWARE AND PROGRAM FILE,CAN YOU HELP TO ME .

Post Edited (kyaw swar) : 8/22/2004 2:17:51 AM GMT

Jon Williams

Then you're in luck, because BASIC Stamp programming software is FREE!· Get the latest at the link below:

http://www.parallax.com/html_pages/downloads/software/software_basic_stamp.asp

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Jon Williams
Applications Engineer, Parallax
Dallas Office

Adrian Schneider

the main reason why tokenizing was chosen over (native code) compilation for basic stamps was
that tokenized code is more memory efficient (a single token can stand for a whole native
code subprogram) and memory was/is more limited with basic stamps than cpu power.
Besides this, tokenized code running on a software interpreter allows to change the underlying
hardware (e.g. CPU) while keeping the development system compatible.

Regards
Adrian