David L. Nicol wrote:
> Ken Fox wrote:
> > . The real problems of exception handling, closures, dynamic
> > scoping, etc. are just not possible to solve using simple C code.
> >
> > - Ken
>
> I'm not talking about translating perl to C code, I'm talking about
> translating perl to machine language.
Same diff. C is just portable assembly language.
> C is babytalk compared to Perl, when it comes to being something
> which is translatable to machine language. Ug.
If you meant what it looks like you wrote, then you're wrong.
C is as translatable to machine language as anything in the
world, and more so than most, at least if you don't consider
assembly languages proper. Perl's machine model is extremely
different from any "real" machine ever made -- with the possible
exception of the Lisp Machine (I don't know, never used one) --
and this alone makes it hard to translate into machine code,
even going through C. And this is true even if our target is
something like the JVM, which is still essentially a low-level
machine, not unlike silicon.
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
