News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on John Carmack: Script Interpreters Considered Harmful. Parent comment

Re:John Carmack: Script Interpreters Considered Harmful by marijn on Saturday August 13, 2011 @04:22PM (#2881900)
Both ActionScript and Lua are compiled, one way or another. Unfortunately, not everyone seems to have caught on to this an people are still widely referring to all dynamic languages as interpreted. Dynamic typing, garbage collection, and just-in-time compilation have a cost, which I guess is what Carmack was referring to, but the term 'interpreter' seems poorly applied here.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:John Carmack: Script Interpreters Considered Harmful by Scaevolus on Saturday August 13, 2011 @05:02PM (#2881996)
People usually use "compiled" to refer to languages that lower programs into machine code. Lowering the program into a bytecode isn't sufficient.

Bytecode interpreters must be carefully optimized, and still usually have an unavoidable performance hit from their cache usage patterns (e.g. from bytecode being in d-cache).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:John Carmack: Script Interpreters Considered Harmful by marijn on Monday August 15, 2011 @02:42PM (#2888131)
Which is why dynamic languages are compiled to machine code nowadays. I'm not sure about ActionScript, but both JavaScript and Lua are compiled to machine code when speed matters.
[ Parent | on HN ]