RE: Good resource for beginning programmers

  • From: "Ken Perry" <whistler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:45:36 -0500

I agree with you that is why my definition is simple there are no scripting
languages.  There are only languages used as scripting or not.  So there
grin.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:02 AM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Good resource for beginning programmers

On 11/17/10, Christopher <ccoale427@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I highly, highly disagree with you here. First of all, your definitions
> of an interpreted language and a compiled language are wrong, or you are
> simply being highly specific. Not all compilers will generate "object
> files" that need to be "linked" via a linker. It can be an option, sure.
> The languages "C" and "C++" have no where in their specifications that
> say a compiler must generate object files in which a linker must
> transform them into machine code. In fact, the C and C++ specifications
> don't even say they need to be compiled at all. Take a look at "Ch". It
> is an embedded -scripting language- version of C++.
>
Just find this discussion interesting...if you write your own
lexer/parser, you could do whatever you want to the source (doesn't
really matter what language in particular you're writing in).


> An interpreted language is rarely executed "line by line." If I sound
> rude, I apologize, but that is almost like an "Introduction to Computer
> Science" definition of what an interpreted language is. In all
> actuality, a scripting language (any decent one, which includes Python)
> will transform the source code into a serious of tokens after which an
> optional pass for optimization will be done. Some (GameMonkey), but not
> all, will then generate their own byte-code and execute the byte-code
> via their own interpreter. This is typically the faster method, and is
> really only used with embedded languages.
>
> To call a scripting language a "programming language" is really just
> laziness by the person writing (and I am guilty of it). We like to
> classify all kinds of coding as simply "programming."
>
Not the poster you're responding to, but if one looks at the way
computer science courses are structured at any worth your salt
department, no one cares what language you write in (within reason),
but care about *what* you're writing.  You could do simple "scripting"
tasks in C++ just as you could implement complex itterative learning
algorithms in python (which is obviously "programming").  It's all in
the hands of the developer.  Just as a good musician could make a
cheapo instrument sound good...
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at 
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

__________
View the list's information and change your settings at 
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

Other related posts: