On 2020-08-09, Marco Sulla <marco.sulla.pyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 10:31, Barry Scott <ba...@barrys-emacs.org> wrote:
>> By going to C you are really saying you want to use the native >> instructions of your CPU. Contrast that with bytecode that needs >> an interpreter. > > This is also an answer for Grant Edwards: the idea was to generate > bytecode and compile it to machine code. Right. I was just pointing out that you said you wanted to do "static compilation", and then provided an small example that demonstrated something unrelated[1] (static typing). If you want to design a language that has static typing, that's fine. If you want to implement that language using static compilation, that's fine. You can have both if you want. But, they are two independent concepts, and you're going to confuse people if you use them interchangeably. [1] Though in theory they are orthogonal, in practice certain combinations of static compilation vs. bytecode+VM and static vs. dynamic typing are harder to implement than others. -- Grant -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
