Since the distinction between interpreters and compilers seems to be
hazy sometimes, has anybody proposed a third distinction?
Byters - for those programming languages that compile to byte code?
or
Pyters - since p-code (for Pascal) was the first language used in a
virtual machine?
Then there are Byter distinctions:
- those languages keeping the interpreter around - Python
- those languages that throw away the compiler - Java
--
Regards,
Casey
Oliver Wong - 17 Oct 2005 22:41 GMT
> Since the distinction between interpreters and compilers seems to be
> hazy sometimes, has anybody proposed a third distinction?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> - those languages keeping the interpreter around - Python
> - those languages that throw away the compiler - Java
The problem is that interpreted/compiled is a property of the run time
environment, not of the programming language itself. You could write a C++
interpreter, and you could write a Java compiler.
- Oliver
Roedy Green - 18 Oct 2005 01:09 GMT
>- those languages that throw away the compiler - Java
Java does all kinds of things with the byte code, interpret, AOT. JIT,
hotspot..

Signature
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Paul Cager - 18 Oct 2005 10:22 GMT
> Since the distinction between interpreters and compilers seems to be
> hazy sometimes, has anybody proposed a third distinction?
I think there is already a name for this "third way" - an "interpretive
compiler". Have a look at http://www.comsci.us/compiler/glossary/
Paul
Casey Hawthorne - 20 Oct 2005 16:29 GMT
>> Since the distinction between interpreters and compilers seems to be
>> hazy sometimes, has anybody proposed a third distinction?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Paul
You have made my minute!
Okay!
61 seconds, in your case!
--
Regards,
Casey