Re: Interpreted vs. Compiled

[Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>]

Ludovic Brenta expounded in news:87k4sunb9u.fsf_-_@ludovic-brenta.org:

> I do not think any language can be said to be "interpreted" or
> "compiled".  Instead, any *implementation* of any language can be
> "interpreted", "compiled" or something in between.  It is almost a
> continuum.

Under Unix, it is generally accepted that if a 3rd-party
(not o/s and not so-called executable) process is required,
it is known as the "interpreter". 

Linux for example used to (probably still does) have the 
ability to register the "interpreter". This was done with 
the JVM. Once the JVM was registered, you could launch the 
byte-code as if it were a native executable-- which is 
obviously slight-of-hand, since there is the necessary 
invoking of the "interpreter" as well (it is not purely
the o/s being used).

Now I only mention "this" particular view (as before) of an 
interpreter for the very simple utilitarian reason that 
once you realize that an interpreting "middleman" is 
involved, it is very obvious (i.e. not surprising) 
that it runs less efficiently than other native code
options.

Any other concept of "interpreter" in this discussion of
performance is less interesting in this context. 

BTW, emulation leads to the same conclusion as
an interpreter, since it too is "interpreting", even if
one doesn't usually call it that.

> Interpreted, stricto sensu, means that the interpreter reads the 
> sources of the program as written by the human programmer.

I should probably shutup, but you do know that many of
"those" interpreters also use an intermediate code in
memory. So just because they don't store it in a file 
that way, doesn't make them any more special IMO.

> You get the drift.

Yep. Yep. 

Warren