interpreted-language

I was reading about the pros and cons of interpreted languages, and one of the most common cons is the slowness, but why are programs in interpreted languages slow? Native programs runs using instructions written for the processor they run on. Interpreted languages are just that, "interpreted". Some other form of instruction is read, and interpreted, by a runtime, which in turn executes native machine instructions. Think of it this way. If you can talk in your native language to someone, that would generally work faster than having an interpreter having to translate your language into some

Is Perl compiled or interpreted? Prof. Falken Well, that depends on what you mean by a compiled language. Maybe this is why googling did not bring forth a clear answer to your question. One viewpoint is that compilation means compiling from a source code description to another, i.e. code generation . If we accept these premises, then Perl 6 can be compiled and Perl 5 and older are interpreted languages. Perl 6 is specifically compiled to Parrot bytecode . Perl 6 is therefore a properly compiled language, in the same way say, Java is . Perl 5 and older parses the Perl source code to an internal

Why didn't languages such as C end up being using for web dev? Surely the speed increases from being compiled would be useful for heavy load sites? Stein G. Strindhaug Another good reason is that on a big server execution speed is not so much an issue as the connection speed anyway. Most of the time is spent sending and receiving data, not number crunching. And actually in certain web services which do a lot of computations, the hard crunching is probably run as a compiled program. Plus interpreted languages don't need compiling (which on a large project can take time), thus it's more suited

There is a lot of contradicting information about this. While some say C# is compiled (as it is compiled into IL and then to native code when run), others say it's interpreted as it needs .NET. EN Wiki says: Many interpreted languages are first compiled to some form of virtual machine code, which is then either interpreted or compiled at runtime to native code. So I'm quite confused. Could anyone explain this clearly? C# is compiled into IL, by the c# compiler. This IL is then compiled just-in-time (JIT) as it's needed, into the native assembly language of the host machine. It would be

Can Javascript be called a pure interpreted language? Or does it also have some compiled flavor to it? Could someone guide at the reasons behind both the things whichever being true. Matt Esch Go and read the answers to this question https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/138521/is-javascript-interpreted-by-design The answer I accepted is excellent and should help answer your question. For me personally, I am somewhat cautious of the idea of calling a language interpreted or compiled. It's an implementation decision, not part of the language specification. If you want to talk

In the chosen answer for this question about Blue Ruby , Chuck says: All of the current Ruby implementations are compiled to bytecode. Contrary to SAP's claims, as of Ruby 1.9, MRI itself includes a bytecode compiler, though the ability to save the compiled bytecode to disk disappeared somewhere in the process of merging the YARV virtual machine. JRuby is compiled into Java .class files. I don't have a lot of details on MagLev, but it seems safe to say it will take that road as well. I'm confused about this compilation/interpretation issue with respect to Ruby. I learned that Ruby is an

I just don't know that, is there any technical reason for that? Is it more difficult to implement a compiler for a language with weak typing? What is it? Norman Ramsey The premises behind the question are a bit dodgy . It is not true that interpreted languages are mostly ducktyped. It is not true that compiled languages mostly have strong typing. The type system is a property of a language . Compiled versus interpreted is a property of an implementation . Examples: The programming language Scheme is dynamically typed (aka duck-typed), and it has many dozens of interpreted implementations, but