Re:Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages
by etiene on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @11:25AM
(#15294796)
> Do you think Roberto Ierusalimschy is confused about that ?
No, of course not. I think you are. You are clearly misinterpreting his words. I will repeat, (PUC)Lua is not compiled to machine code, but to an intermediate bytecode form. Those are completely different things, and what I said does not come in conflict at all with the quote you took from PiL, so I don't know what you are confronting me about.
Re:Energy Efficiency Across Programming Languages
by igouy on Thursday September 21, 2017 @11:59AM
(#15304767)
> Lua is not compiled to machine code, but to an intermediate bytecode form.
Correct.
Now look at what Roberto Ierusalimschy means by "interpreted language": "… the distinguishing feature of interpreted languages is not that they are not compiled, but that any eventual compiler is part of the language runtime and that, therefore, it is possible (and easy) to execute code generated on the fly."
Is that what you mean by "interpreted language" ?
Do you think Roberto Ierusalimschy is confused about that ?
Again, here's what the creator of Lua says -- "… the distinguishing feature of interpreted languages is not that they are not compiled, but that any eventual compiler is part of the language runtime…"
EDIT:
Is that not what you mean by "interpreted language" ?