Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Muttley@dastardlyhq.com Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:50:09 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 59 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:50:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="90b74c972339d9d95568dfe55f9984dc"; logging-data="229337"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Axqdyjg7i09EbaAqFRZr3" Cancel-Lock: sha1:230UAIid1Dr4HoZKMrHslNkL/74= Bytes: 3388 On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:53:56 -0000 (UTC) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled: >In article , wrote: >>up. You can't just point the CPU at the first byte of the binary and off it >>goes particularly in the case of Linux where the kernel requires decompressing > >>first. > >Again, not generally, no. Consider an embedded system where the >program to be executed on, say, a microcontroller is itself >statically linked at an absolute address and burned into a ROM, Unlikely to be running *nix in that case. >with the program's entry point at the CPU's reset address. I >suppose that's not "standalone" if you count a ROM burner as >part of "loading" it. Now you're just being silly. >Also, I mentioned Unix, not Linux. The two are different. The Are they? Thats debatable these days. I'd say Linux is a lot closer to the philosphy of BSD and SYS-V than MacOS which is a certified unix. >>Standalone as you are well aware in the sense of doesn't require an >interpreter >>or VM to run on the OS and contains CPU machine code. > >So what about a binary that is dynamically linked with a shared >object? That requires a runtime interpreter nee linker to bind >its constituent parts together before it's executable. And what >if it makes a system call? Then it's no longer "standalone", as >it necessarily relies on the operating system to perform part of >its function. Standalone in the sense that the opcodes in the binary don't need to be transformed into something else before being loaded by the CPU. >usually in userspace. Why do you think that a compiler that >generates bytecode for some virtual machine is any different >from a compiler that generates object code for some CPU? I'd say its a grey area because it isn't full compilation is it, the p-code still requires an interpreter before it'll run. >You don't seem to be able to recognize that the compilation step Compiling is not the same as converting. Is a javascript to C converter a compiler? By your definition it is. >>Where do you get this commonly accepted definition from? > >*shrug* Tanenbaum; Silberschatz; Kaashoek; Roscoe; etc. Where >did you get your definition? Only heard of one of them so mostly irrelevant. Mine come from the name of tools that compile code to a runnable binary.