Re:Computer Language Benchmarks Game – Rust vs. Go
by jerf on Wednesday December 24, 2014 @12:04AM
(#8791621)
"Scripts are interpreted" is a bit 1990s; as the Scripting 1.0 languages have tried to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the constraints they labor under this is less true than it used to be. And more to the point, rather than a binary distinction like you could have claimed in 1995, it's much, much more a continuum now, and with computers running a bazillion times faster, much less important. I'm not that worried about applying a useless criterion to languages that dates from an era whose desktop computers would aspire to keep up with a low-end 'feature' phone.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Computer Language Benchmarks Game – Rust vs. Go
by laumars on Wednesday December 24, 2014 @06:01AM
(#8792411)
I think the former poster meant that scripts are JIT compiled rather than interpreted. But either way, with scripting languages, you redistribute the source code. With AOT compiled languages such as Go and Rust, you redistribute the binary (albeit some will always prefer to compile on the target PC).
That's not to say that I think Go and Rust are the same classification of languages though. I think "scripting vs compiled" is an overly simplistic view. Go compares better against the byte-code AOT compiled languages such as C# and Java. These kind of languages are also seen in some traditionally scripting-dominated markets (eg web development) while still being used as systems languages as well.