Re: Are these all really true ?

> > * Compilation is better than interpretation.
>
> Both are very useful, however interpretation takes more memory and runs
> slower. The advantage is it is easier to develop and make minor changes
> in a language with an interperater. Now if you add up the time saved in
> running the program then I suspect you will find it always best to have a
> compiler (even if an interpreter was used in development).
>


Whilst I would not argue with this...


If you wish to write programs which are self modifying - for example
many Natural Language Processing type programs - especially LISP
or even Mathematica type code then an interpreter can be much easier
to coax into self-modifying, since variables etc can be re-defined
on the fly, this extends to whole program segments or procedures
which may be modified by re-definition at a later date.
Whilst a compiler can do the same by including many different versions of
the same code segment, an interpreter will be able to do it better
(IMO)


John B
--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.