🚀 go-pugleaf

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.