Re: COBOL compiler
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 16:27, Deryk Barker wrote:
> Thus spake Kirk Strauser (kirk@strauser.com):
>
> > At 2003-08-27T11:41:17Z, Pigeon <jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Perl is compiled into opcodes before execution begins. All Perl is compiled.
>
> Perl is byte-compiled (like java was intended, like python) which
> means that the resulting bytecode must still be interpreted, adding a
> level of overhead to compilation to native code.
>
> python actually can be "frozen" to produce an executable that does not
> require IIRC even the python runtime library to be present.
The run-time must always be there, by definition. Running Python
against a python source file that doesn't have a "main" will cause
it to create a byte-compiled .pyc file. This helps
(a) at run-time, because the file doesn't have to re-parsed
(b) you can ship a much smaller .pyc file
(c) you can hide the source from the end-users, especially "a
little knowledge is a dangerous thing" dorks.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA
"As the night fall does not come at once, neither does
oppression. It is in such twilight that we must all be aware of
change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting
victims of the darkness."
Justice William O. Douglas
Reply to: