[virtmach] MS Common Language Runtime

larry larryr@eclipse.net
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.