Lan Barnes wrote: > BASIC makes me gag, _but_ interpreted languages give you instant feedback. > Compiled languages make the development cycle far longer _but_ they tend > to provide formalism and structure. Hmm ... what could I do that would > throw away the good from both options and distill that which is bad?
So, two things: 1) Languages aren't compiled vs. interpreted. Implementations are. Most languages (C++ perhaps being a rare exception that proves the rule) are available with implementations that compile or interpret them. 2) Particularly since the advent of JIT runtimes, the distinction between compiled vs. non-compiled and the interactivity of two has blurred to the point of being non-existent. If "compiled" languages are just translating source to byte codes before handing it off to the runtime, which is exactly what happens in an interpreter, what is this shorter development cycle coming from? Perhaps it is not really about whether you compile or interpret, but rather properties that are commonly found in what you think of as "interpreted" languages. --Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
