Re: p-code compilers

"Aaron F. Stanton" <>
27 Jan 1999 12:12:56 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
p-code compilers (Bogomil Alexondrov) (1999-01-22)
Re: p-code compilers (1999-01-23)
Re: p-code compilers (1999-01-23)
Re: p-code compilers (Derek Ross) (1999-01-23)
Re: p-code compilers (1999-01-25)
Re: p-code compilers (Toon Moene) (1999-01-25)
Re: p-code compilers (Aaron F. Stanton) (1999-01-27)
Re: p-code compilers (1999-01-27)
Re: p-code compilers (Robert Howard) (1999-01-31)
Re: p-code compilers (1999-01-31)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Aaron F. Stanton" <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 27 Jan 1999 12:12:56 -0500
Organization: Purdue University
References: 99-01-078
Keywords: interpreter, translator

I'd like to throw an additional wrench into the fray if I could:

It seems to be a sort of consensus that translators go from a high
level language to another, while a compiler goes from a high level
language to a low level one. (This is oversimplifying, I know, but
bear with me.) A low level language seems to be one that is more-or-
less directly executable by a processor, or is interpreted by a
virtual machine.

This brings up the question in my mind of where interpreters fit into
this system, and how this affects the "definition" of high level
languages. Given the existence of EIC, or even the good old BASIC
interpreters, which take a high level language and interpret that
without the clearly visible step of compilation (though I am sure they
do compile it internally to another representation), how does this
relate to our existing definition scheme? Essentially, the high level
language is performing the function of what was formerly the domain of
low level languages.

Just an aside with no real point, just a question of semantics, I


Post a followup to this message

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