[virtmach] MS Common Language Runtime

larry larryr@eclipse.net
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:05:15 -0400

> However, personally I still think "bytecode" is the most appropriate
> term for describing the binary representation of their IL.  I don't
> think the differences are significant enough to warrant inventing a
> new term.
> I think the main reason that Microsoft don't want their IL
> representation labelled as "bytecode" is marketing goals.  Microsoft
> have been very studiously avoiding mentioning Java and in particular
> avoiding comparing the MS CLR to the Java.  I guess you can draw your
> own conclusions from that.

I can understand MS's point of view.  I worked on the Dis VM that
is part of the Inferno OS from Bell Labs.  Its "VM Instructions"
were not considered bytecode because the instructions were encoded
to be more then one byte (instructions were a byte, but the instructions
had operands included in the stream).  So the term bytecode was not
appropriate.  We just called it the Dis VM Instruction set.