Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #6276
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: First Program with Python! |
| Date | 2016-02-15 22:45 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <n9tk91$l97$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <56ee81f0-8542-49e5-a177-c7794f2d48d7@googlegroups.com> <20160215083844.251@kylheku.com> <n9t1s6$825$1@dont-email.me> <n9tbhv$hp5$1@dont-email.me> |
On 15/02/2016 20:16, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 15/02/16 17:31, BartC wrote: >> If there is any translation involved at all from source code to some >> other, usually less human-readable format, then both compilers and >> interpreters can do that. > > Interpreting is on-the-fly conversion - decode it *right now* and then > do it *right now*. Compilation is conversion into another language for > later use. That would be an unusual - and inefficient - way for an interpreter to work. Very often there is some preprocessing of the whole program or module before execution starts, a step that tends to be transparent so that it looks like it is interpreting source code directly. The ones I create are similar but have a discrete compilation step that produces byte-code. And there is a further step, transparent this time and near-instant, that collates multiple modules into one running program. This is not that different from what's involved in traditional compiling and linking, but those tend to be slower and clunkier processes. Slow enough that you want to do it in advance. If such compilers and linkers were much snappier in operation, then it would be harder to tell the difference between a normal compilation and interpretation. (Well, until you run the code then the compiled code can be much faster, depending on the kind of application. But there is a cost because such code tends to be harder to write.) -- Bartc
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
First Program with Python! anitagoyal571@gmail.com - 2016-02-09 06:11 -0800
Re: First Program with Python! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-09 14:30 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-02-09 14:35 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-09 19:06 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-02-09 16:55 -0800
Re: First Program with Python! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-10 09:20 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-02-15 16:49 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-02-09 16:32 -0800
Re: First Program with Python! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-10 14:07 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-10 16:24 +0100
Re: First Program with Python! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-10 16:55 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-02-11 00:18 +0100
Re: First Program with Python! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-11 00:07 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-02-15 16:58 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-10 21:51 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-11 00:15 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-02-15 16:46 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-15 17:31 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-02-15 20:16 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-02-15 22:45 +0000
Re: First Program with Python! Kaz Kylheku <330-706-9395@kylheku.com> - 2016-02-16 03:40 +0000
csiph-web