.if !\n(xx .so tmac.p
.nr H1 3
.if n .ND
.NH
Conclusions
.PP
It is appropriate to consider,
given the amount of time invested in rewriting the interpreter,
whether the time was well spent, or whether a code-generator
could have been written with an equivalent amount of effort.
The Berkeley Pascal system is being modified to interface
to the code generator of the portable C compiler with
not much more work than was involved in rewritting
.I px .
However this compiler will probably not supercede the interpreter
in an instructional environment as the
necessary loading and assembly processes will slow the
compilation process to a noticeable degree.
This effect will be further exaggerated because
student users spend more time in compilation than in execution.
Measurements over the course of a quarter at Berkeley with a mixture
of students from beginning programming to upper division compiler
construction show that the amount of time in compilation exceeds the amount
of time spent in the interpreter, the ratio being approximately 60/40.
.PP
A more promising approach might have been a throw-away code generator
such as was done for the
.SM
WATFIV
.NL
system.
However the addition of high-quality post-mortem and interactive
debugging facilities become much more difficult to provide than
in the interpreter environment.
