[virtmach] MS Common Language Runtime
Wed, 23 Aug 2000 12:41:42 -0400
> > 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.
> That's interesting, I've always thought of the instruction set for the VM
> I've been working on* as "bytecode", although they way its encoded an
> instruction is always a 32bit word, with the first byte as an opcode, and
> the other three as operands.
Yes, I guess I didn't say, this was the view of the initial vm creators.
I don't care too much. Sometimes it was easier to use the term bytecode
because people tend to relate bytecode to be "interpreted VM instructions"
I guess. I don't care too much, but I did tend to use the term
"VM instructions" as opposed to bytecode.