|What is an interpreter? firstname.lastname@example.org (Paul Robinson) (1993-05-08)|
|Re: What is an interpreter? email@example.com (1993-05-09)|
|Re: What is an interpreter? firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-05-09)|
|Re: What is an interpreter? email@example.com (1993-05-10)|
|Re: What is an interpreter? firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-05-10)|
|Re: What is an interpreter? email@example.com (1993-05-11)|
|Re: What is an interpreter? firstname.lastname@example.org (1993-05-13)|
|From:||email@example.com (Mark Leone)|
|Organization:||School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon|
|Date:||Mon, 10 May 1993 15:55:17 GMT|
Paul Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>How do we determine when
>something is a "real" interpreter of a "real" language, and when it
>doesn't quite reach that point?
Since this is a pedantic exercise, here's a pedantic answer: Turing
equivalence. All other useful language features can be simulated.
>File I/O, I think is the knife that cuts the "toys" from the "real"
This would be useless in a language without some control features,
like iteration or functions.
In general, "perceived utility" is a bad way to classify languages
(or interpreters), because people disagree on what features are useful.
Mark Leone <email@example.com>
School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.