From:	Erik Max Francis <max AT alcyone DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Interpreted languages.
Date:	Mon, 02 Jun 1997 14:13:51 -0700
Organization:	Alcyone Systems
Lines:	25
Message-ID:	<3393378F.4AF20ED0@alcyone.com>
References:	<c=US%a=_%p=Hassler_Communic%l=DAISY-970601013014Z-334 AT daisy DOT hcst DOT com> <3391D786 DOT 46760829 AT alcyone DOT com> <5mvc21$aa9 AT nr1 DOT toronto DOT istar DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	newton.alcyone.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Jeff Weeks wrote:

> I agree with the first paragraph.  Some place or another the processor
> is going to have to interpret something.  You say you compile things
> into machine code... you're exactly right... machine CODE.  Code which
> must be interpreted by the processor.  The processor has to look at the
> code in memory and say, "Oh, EA... that means jump" and does a jump.
> Just because it does this blindingly fast doesn't mean it's not
> interpreted.

The reason a distinction is made between compiled and interpreted
languages is that compiled languages are faster, since they're turning
source code into a binary form native to the processor in question.

Obviously the processor executed compile machine code.  But that's missing
the purpose of the distinction is made between compiled and interpreted
languages.

-- 
       Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / email / max AT alcyone DOT com
                     Alcyone Systems /   web / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States /  icbm / 37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W
                                   \
     "Covenants without the sword / are but words."
                                 / Camden

- Raw text -