5242Re: Compiled or Interpreted?
- May 1, 2002You've put the right spin on it. LB does have a compiler (in fact it
has five different kinds of compilers), but not the kind that makes
machine code EXEs. It ultimately executes your programs using a JIT
native code compiler, similar to the way some of the fancier Java
virtual machines do it (but in fact there is a Smalltalk virtual
machine under the covers). It never actually stores this native
machine code to disk, but instead an intermediate format is stored.
LB Source->TKN file(on disk)->bytecodes in memory->native code
--- In libertybasic@y..., "bryan_davisuk" <phoenix@e...> wrote:
> Hm, intertesting question, compiled generally is taken to mean
> compiled to machine code, which is something LB does not do, and I
> dont belive that it runs at machine code speeds.
> However, it isnt strictly interpreted either, others with more
> experience may have a different take, but generally interpreters
> from source code which LB dosnt do either
> The compiled/interpreted definition is an extreamly old division,
> is probably now out of date, I dont know if domeone has added a
> catergory yet, but I believe there are a few other languges that
> into this grey area, maybe enough to define a third classification.
> --- In libertybasic@y..., "sjl_99" <sjl_99@y...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm still new to LB. The subject line says it all.. is LB
> > interpreted?
> > My understanding is that compiled languages run many times faster.
> > Thanks,
> > Steve.
- << Previous post in topic