I feel the same way. I went to read the post expecting a lot more than what I found and came away feeling both more knowledgeable than I thought I was and more ignorant for not knowing that I could get away with calling what a saw a "Virtual Machine"
It's an instruction set, with an instruction dispatcher, a stack, and a register file. Why would it surprise you that someone would call it a VM?
Are you maybe getting your signals crossed between the kind of VM this article is talking about (in the p-code sense of a VM) and virtualization systems?
Comments
I feel the same way. I went to read the post expecting a lot more than what I found and came away feeling both more knowledgeable than I thought I was and more ignorant for not knowing that I could get away with calling what a saw a "Virtual Machine"
It's an instruction set, with an instruction dispatcher, a stack, and a register file. Why would it surprise you that someone would call it a VM?
Are you maybe getting your signals crossed between the kind of VM this article is talking about (in the p-code sense of a VM) and virtualization systems?
I was not surprised that it was called a VM. I was surprised that I didn't know that!
"Virtual machine" here means "abstract machine" as in JVM or CLR, not "multiplexed hardware".