Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: George Neuner Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: fledgling assembler programmer Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2023 20:54:26 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Sender: johnl@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <23-03-022@comp.compilers> References: <23-03-001@comp.compilers> <23-03-002@comp.compilers> <23-03-003@comp.compilers> <23-03-007@comp.compilers> <23-03-008@comp.compilers> <23-03-012@comp.compilers> <23-03-017@comp.compilers> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="33069"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: code, interpreter Posted-Date: 26 Mar 2023 05:15:30 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3424 On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 13:07:57 +0100, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: >After a look at "open software" I was astonished by the number of >languages and steps involved in writing portable C code. Also updates of >popular programs (Firefox...) are delayed by months on some platforms, >IMO due to missing manpower on the target systems for checks and the >adaptation of "configure". Now I understand why many people prefer >interpreted languages (Java, JavaScript, Python, .NET...) for a >simplification of their software products and spreading. Actually Python is the /only/ one of those that normally is interpreted. And the interpreter is so slow the language would be unusable were it not for the fact that all of its standard library functions and most of its useful extensions are written in C. In practice Java and Javascript almost always are JIT compiled to native code rather than interpreted. There also exist offline (AOT) compilers for both. Many JIT runtimes do let you choose to have programs interpreted rather than compiled, but running interpreted reduces performance so much that it is rarely done unless memory is very tight. .NET is not a language itself but rather a runtime system like the Jave Platform. .NET consists of a virtual machine: the Common Language Runtime (CLR); and a set of standard libraries. Similarly the Java Platform consists of a virtual machine: the Java Virtual Machine (JVM); and a set of standard libraries. Compilers target these runtime systems. The .NET CLR does not include an interpreter ... I'm not aware that there even is one for .NET. There is an offline (AOT) compiler that can be used instead of the JIT. >What's the actual ranking of programming languages? A JetBrains study >does not list any compiled language in their first 7 ranks in 2022. C++ >follows on rank 8. > >What does that trend mean to a compiler group? Interpreted languages >still need a front-end (parser) and back-end (interpreter), but don't >these tasks differ between languages compiled to hardware or interpretation? The trend is toward "managed" environments which offer niceties like GC, objects with automagic serialized access, etc., all to help protect average programmers from themselves ... err, um, from being unable to produce working software. >DoDi George