in reply to Re: On Scripting versus Compiled solutions
in thread On Scripting versus Compiled solutions

For that matter, even C compilers often translate the code to an intermediate langauge before outputting the executable.
Yes, but for completely different reasons. C compilers do that to avoid the N*M problem, that is, having to compile N languages on M platforms. Without an intermediate language, one would have to write N*M compilers - with an intermediate language, one only needs to write N + M compilers.

It doesn't interpret the intermediate language - by the time runtime starts, the intermediate language is gone.

Abigail

  • Comment on Re: On Scripting versus Compiled solutions

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: On Scripting versus Compiled solutions
by hardburn (Abbot) on Mar 09, 2004 at 16:01 UTC

    The Java people will tell you (rightly or wrongly) that Java compiles to bytecode so that it's cross-platform. Which is still an effort to solve an N*M problem. There are other benefits to this, too (such as runtime optimization via JIT), but for the Java commmunity, at least, the primary goal seems to be cross-platform support. The difference between that and gcc's IL is when the compile to machine code is done.

    Also, some compilers (like the gcc suite) support many languages, so we have to add another term to the equation: L*N*M, where L is the number of languages you want to support. Which just makes the use of an internal IL that much more important. Ignore that bit. Misread Abigail-II's post.

    ----
    : () { :|:& };:

    Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

[reply]
[d/l]
      Also, some compilers (like the gcc suite) support many languages, so we have to add another term to the equation: L*N*M
      L * N * M? Then what is N? I said N languages, and M platforms. You say L languages, but don't say what N is (or M).

      Abigail

[reply]

        Oops, misread the above. Ignore that bit :)

[reply]

In Section Meditations