From: Norman L. DeForest
Subject: Re: Lisp is not an interpreted language
Date:
Message-ID: <55o5ni$9ed@News.Dal.Ca>
[ newsgroups trimmed ]
Chris (······@infonie.fr) wrote:
: >Uh I think that Compiling means to translate anything into machine code.
: >Interpreted means to identify a string value with an according machine
: >code instruction.
: ----------
: I don't think so. The compiler usually translate to assembly, then the
: assembler translates to machine code. Sometimes the assembler is built in,
: sometimes it may translate in one pass.
: What about the Java compiler ? Is the code in machine language ? Isn't it a
: compiler ?
: Chris
You can compile to machine code, you can compile to a series of links
in a linked list (some implementations of Forth), or you can compile to
an intermediate pseudo-code that is interpreted at run time (GW-BASIC or
at least one version of Pascal (USCD Pascal if I'm not wrong)).
Norman De Forest
·····@chebucto.ns.ca
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html
.........................................................................
Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy?
A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
.........................................................................
For those robots that gather e-mail addresses from postings and sig. blocks:
Junk e-mail received so far this month from:
········@leonardo.net and ······@onlinenow.net and ······@icanect.net and
·······@netsoft.ie and ···@mymail.com and ····@uar.com
--