Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| The melting ice technology (1): compilers & interpreters bertrand@eiffel.com (1994-05-09) |
| The melting ice technology (2): levels bertrand@eiffel.com (1994-05-09) |
| Re: The melting ice technology (2): levels peter@objy.com (1994-05-12) |
| Re: The melting ice technology (2): levels mhcoffin@tolstoy.uwaterloo.ca (1994-05-13) |
| Re: The melting ice technology (2): levels papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (1994-05-13) |
| Re: The melting ice technology (2): levels lgm@polaris.ih.att.com (1994-05-14) |
| Re: The melting ice technology (2): levels pdlogan@ccm.jf.intel.com (1994-05-16) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.lang.eiffel,comp.compilers |
| From: | papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) |
| Keywords: | Eiffel, interpreter |
| Organization: | University of Waterloo |
| References: | 94-05-019 94-05-032 |
| Date: | Fri, 13 May 1994 16:53:30 GMT |
>Come on. The preceeding description of Professionial Eiffel's large grain
>recompilation and small-grain re-interpretation is very interesting, and
>it sounds like a hybrid of recompilation and interpretation techniques.
>But to reach the above conclusion, you have stretched definitions of
>`compile' and `interpret' well beyond common usage to the point of
>sophistry. You have defined them such that all systems are both compilers
>and interpreters, and thus made them meaningless.
Well, pretty much all systems ARE compilers and interpreters. The line
between them is not very clearly drawn. I agree with you, however,
that to say flat out: "Personal Eiffel is compiled" would mislead most
people.
IBM has a similar process for REXX on OS/2. But, they didn't see the
opportunity to turn it into an advantage as ISE does. Instead they call
it "Tokenizing." Or is there a difference that I haven't perceived between
"Melting ICE Tecnnology" and REXX tokenizing?
Paul Prescod
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.