Re: COBOL compiler
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:41, Pigeon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:53:34PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 19:35, Britton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > [snip]
[snip]
> >
> > You might want to try Python as a prototyping, and even implementation,
> > language. It has many graphics libraries that are coded in C for
> > speed. Thus, you get the benefits of a VHLL plus a LLL (low level
> > language) when speed is needed.
>
> Is there any reason why any of these complex scripting languages have
> to be interpreted, as opposed to compiled?
>
> Some quite complex packages are around which have been written in
> such languages; Perl seems to be both common and expensive. It would
[snip]
>
> To me, it seems that the obvious solution is to run the script through
> a Perl compiler, and produce a binary executable that should execute
> at the same order of speed as any other compiled HLL code. Why is this
> not done? Is it simply that nobody's bothered to write a Perl
> compiler, or is there some infelicity in the design of Perl that makes
> it impractical?
Can't say about Perl, but attempts at a Python compiler have only
been partially successful, because Python is so dynamic.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
"I have created a government of whirled peas..."
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 12-May-2002, CNN, Larry King Live
Reply to: