Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vebjmj$5dc$1@reader1.panix.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:28:03 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: <vebjmj$5dc$1@reader1.panix.com> References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vebffc$3n6jv$1@dont-email.me> <vebh5t$mnh$1@reader1.panix.com> <vebi0j$3nhvq$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:28:03 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="5548"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Bytes: 2800 Lines: 45 In article <vebi0j$3nhvq$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote: >On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:45:01 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled: >>In article <vebffc$3n6jv$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote: >>>On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:47:06 +0100 >>>Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> boring babbled: >>>>Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> Interpreter? Perl has some kind of compiler in it, right? >>>> >>>>The Perl compiler turns Perl source code into a set of (that's a >>> >>>Does it produce a standalone binary as output? No, so its an intepreter >>>not a compiler. However unlike the python interpreter its non interactive >>>making it an even less attractive option these days. >> >>That's a bad distinction. There have been "Load and Go" >>compilers in the past that have compiled and linked a program >>directly into memory and executed it immediately after >>compilation. As I recall, the Waterloo FORTRAN compilers on the >>IBM mainframe did, or could do, more or less this. > >Irrelevant. Lot of interpreters do partial compilation and the JVM does it >on the fly. A proper compiler writes a standalone binary file to disk. Not generally, no. Most compilers these days generate object code and then, as a separate step, a linker is invoked to combine object files and library archives into an executable binary. By the way, when many people talk about a "standalone" binary, they are referring to something directly executable on hardware, without the benefit of an operating system. The Unix kernel is an example of such a "standalone binary." Most executable binaries are not standalone. >>Saving to some sort of object image is not a necessary function >>of a compiler. > >Yes it is. So you say, but that's not the commonly accepted definition. Sorry. - Dan C.