[Ilugc] Compiled/Interpreted languages (was: College P...)
- From: ganesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ganesh Swami)
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:05:47 -0800
"SR" == Sridhar R <sridharinfinity@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
SR> Anand Kumar Saha wrote:
>> How come Visual Basic is a scripting language ? Its compiled
>> ('built', as in VB.NET term) and not interpreted.
SR> VB _is_ a scripting language. Applications deployed in VB
SR> will also include some vb6 runtime dlls. Actually (I think)
SR> that dlls contain the interpreter. You doubt cleanly tells
SR> that VB is an unnecessay scripting language (as it lacks
SR> explicit scripting language features).
C _is_ a scripting language. Applications developed in C will need a
runtime library (called [g]libc). Actually I think libc contains a
interpreter for the C language.
And so on and so forth....NOT !
VB used to compile to p-code in version 5, but from version 6 onwards,
you can compile to native code. Every language with a class library
requires a runtime library (unless you compile static).
p-code must be something like bytecode and that actually blurs the
line between compiled and interpreted languages. I believe bytecodes
run faster than compiled languages because of the JIT.
If you want to get laid, go to school;
If you want to get educated, go to the library.
-- Frank Zappa.
Other related posts:
- » [Ilugc] Compiled/Interpreted languages (was: College P...) - Ganesh Swami