Anonymous user
Talk:Interactive programming (repl): Difference between revisions
Talk:Interactive programming (repl) (view source)
Revision as of 12:20, 23 February 2009
, 15 years ago→Interpreter or not?
Line 40:
:Interpreting is inefficient because it does not use machine language code as an intermediate layer before ultimate execution. Interpreter deals exclusively with the source language. This puts some obvious constraints on the language, especially when further limitation is an ability to interpret line-by-line. You cannot factor out and manipulate the machine code as compilers usually do. In fact modern compilers have more than just one intermediate code layer. To compensate inefficiency an interpreted language must be of a lower level in order to bridge the gap to the machine language. [[Forth]] perfectly illustrates this point. Well, some interpreters do precompilation stuff, to become more efficient and less interpreters... --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 08:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
::Hi Dmitry, some argue that programmer productivity is worth more than execution speed in most situations and in their eyes an interpreter may well be much more 'efficient' for them. Don't automatically equate efficiency with speed of execution - there can be other concerns. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 12:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not saying we should use "CLI", I'm saying that the usage which makes "CLI" popular googlewise is "command-line interface", not "command-line interpreter", so "CLI" being popular is not an argument for "command-line interpreter" being an appropriate term. Also -- I suppose I should have just not mentioned inefficiency; it's irrelevant. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 11:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Can we agree to use "Command Line Interpreter" as spelled out in full then? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 12:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
| |||