"compile" vs. "tokenize" (was Re: Password Problem)

[Kenneth Brody]

Fairlight wrote:
[...]
> > I don't see that the target has to exist in hardware.  There are
> > plenty of emulators extant and some often used commercial ones -
> > such as the one that permits MS programs compiled for the Intel
> > platform to run on the Apple PowerPC program.
> 
> And I used to use an emulator to run Mac software on linux under X.  But
> what's your point?  Keyword: emulator.  Obviously the target -does- exist
> in hardware in some location, prior to that kind of software being created.
> That someone later built an emulator in software is one thing.  What Ken
> talked about was someone having built a machine to -be- a code-specific
> emulator.

So if you have hardware, and then build an emulator, you can have a
"compiler", but if you have an emulator and then build the hardware,
it doesn't qualify as a "compiler"?

> I just think it's bending the spirit of it a bit, if not the letter.  Not
> that it truly matters one way or another.  And if they still don't have a
> standard definition after all this time, I doubt we're going to argue it
> out to the point that we define it in this discussion.  :)

Well, "we" (tinw) can define anything we want.  I just wouldn't expect
the rest of the world to be bound by any such definition.  ;-)

-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody        | www.hvcomputer.com |                             |
| kenbrody at spamcop.net | www.fptech.com     | #include <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+