| ??? 05/11/12 21:20 Read: times |
#187336 - I hate throwing objects in the cogs, but... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
At the very bottom of everything there must be a compiled code specific for the hardware somewhere as:
Wikipedia says said:
Interpretation cannot be used as the sole method of execution: even though an interpreter can itself be interpreted, a directly executed programme is needed somewhere at the bottom of the stack. Which would mean that for every interpreter out there, the interpreter itself must have some connection to the platform. So, it is not like you can develop a brand new platform and expect to run interpreted applications without getting some support from the vendor of the interpreter. Am I wrong on this? I had some experience with an in house interpreter long ago, but that was a university professor project. Since then I just do not like the feel for them, as I am not into website development. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Interreted Languages - revisited | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No Tools? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Interpreted is always problematic for complex problems | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It's more than just syntax | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| lint isn't really a syntax checker | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yea That | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Static code analyser | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Exception handling | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| exceptions are normally too little too late | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the issue with interpreted languages is ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| interpreted languages are more than "throw away code" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I hate throwing objects in the cogs, but... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Someone else responsible for compiling the interpreter | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
But the same applies to compiled languages! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Disagree | 01/01/70 00:00 |