🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 18 Feb 1996 17:56:34 +1000, John Osborne
<josborne@magna.com.au> wrote:

>Pat, et. al....
>The compiled .vs. interpreted debate is partially bogus.  Even in 
>compiled languages, on a PC or a mainframe, as soon as ones code enters 
>a runtime library routine, you are -probably- off into 
>interpretation-land.
>I say -probably- because if your runtime routine has any conditional 
>statements that cause the routine to act differently depending on 
>parameter content (i.e., different logic paths) it is 
>"mini-interpreting".
>
>For example, you call the printf routine in -C-, or a formatted -write- 
>statement in Fortran, VB's Format$ routine, or just about any 
>non-trivial Delphi component, and you are executing an interpreter of 
>that language feature.  Sure, the printf function in the -C- runtime 
>library is compiled, as is the ChartFX component in Delphi, or the 
>read/write routines in a Tandem Cobol program, but the runtime system 
>has to -interpret- your parameters via lots of conditional statements to 
>make sense of your parameters/data and perform the requested action.  
>When using VB or other -statement based- interpreted languages, where 
>most people suffer a performance hit is doing things like writing their 
>own INSTR function -within- VB.  Each p-code statement has to be 
>interpreted via VBRUNxxx.DLL which is far worse than just using the 
>library routine.
>
>Regards, John
>
>viewer wrote:
>> 
>> Pat White <pat@pwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> >In nearly 40 years in computing I've never come across anything in any
>> >language definition that prevents compiling. That includes BASIC which
>> >is where this discussion started and p-code. Likewise, they COULD all be
>> >interpreted, only most companies realise compiling is better. Microsoft
>> >is the exception - they tried and failed badly, anyone remember their
>> >Fortran compiler for the PC. When it compiled without falling over you
>> >were amazed. When you ran the results you were sorry!
>> 
>> OTOH, their DOS Basic compilers were fantastic.

I believe John is incorrect if he is saying as it appears that any
code which has a decission tree is interpretive.  Interpretive
languages vs compiled has nothing to do with the logic of the code.
The point is that compiled (true compiled not pcode) languages are
already in binary form and so executable directly while each line of
an interpretive language is converted to binary, each time it is
executed.  Four calls to the BASIC print function results in for
"compiles" at run time.  Four calls to printf in C results in one
compile at compile time and no compiles at run time.  The difference
is not trivial in terms of speed of execution.  Note that the printf
function is a bad example as it carries more overhead than most C
functions.
Jack