Re: Scripting Languages

"Phillip Toland" <p.toland@computer.org>
30 Mar 1998 21:43:09 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter ct7@mitre.org (W. Craig Trader) (1998-03-15)
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (1998-03-15)
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter hgg9140@heckle.ca.boeing.com (1998-03-18)
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter markh@usai.asiainfo.com (Mark Harrison) (1998-03-20)
Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter a010111t@bc.seflin.org (Orlando Llanes) (1998-03-20)
Scripting Languages (was Re: Techniques for writing an interpreter) creedy@mitretek.org (Chris Reedy) (1998-03-24)
Re: Scripting Languages p.toland@computer.org (Phillip Toland) (1998-03-30)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "Phillip Toland" <p.toland@computer.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 30 Mar 1998 21:43:09 -0500
Organization: epix Internet Services
References: 98-03-032 98-03-098 98-03-141 98-03-147 98-03-159 98-03-186 98-03-201 98-03-233
Keywords: interpreter
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4

Chris Reedy wrote in message 98-03-233...
>A quick question: What are the key differences between a scripting
>language and an ordinary programming language? That is, what is it
>about a language that makes it better or worse for the uses described
>above?




John Ousterhout of TCL fame wrote an article which addresses this
issue in the March 1998 issue of IEEE Computer. The gist of the
article was that scripting languages are usually interpreted, loosely
typed, and can represent more instructions with a single line of code.
System programming languages are usually compiled, strongly typed and
represent fewer instructions per line than scripting languages (but
more than assembly language). This is the best explanation I have
heard.




Phil Toland
p.toland@computer.org
--

Post a followup to this message

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