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.