On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:48:09PM -0700, Wade Curry wrote:
> Stewart Stremler([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 11:24:46AM -0700:
> > begin quoting Wade Curry as of Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 09:54:08AM -0700:
> > [snip]
> > > I've always found this terminology confusing. My own perception is
> > > that there is only pre-compiled and interpreted. The interpreted
> >
> > It's probably better to think of it as a continuum.
> >
> > > languages are always compiled as far as I can tell, and that
> >
> > Um... why? Did someone start compiling sh scripts?
> >
> > I can see an interpreted language parsing, tokenizing, and indexing,
> > all without ever compiling anything.
> >
> This is a direct result of my own misperceptions. I was under the
> impression that interpreters converting the code into some kind of binary
> representation on the fly.
>
I believe some do (perl) and others don't (Tcl/Tk). The advantage of
compiling before running are limited, since most errors are in logic
rather than syntax. And to return to the Tcl example, syntax checkers
are available.
But I still occasionally wish I didn't have to test down every possible
pathway ...
Oh, well, changing languages doesn't get you out of that obligation.
--
Lan Barnes
Linux Guy, SCM Specialist
Tcl/Tk Enthusiast
For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being
obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change
opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but
found to be otherwise.
- Benjamin Franklin
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
