I must respectfully call your justification for interpreters hogwash! If the
originating language is well defined, there is no issue with portability as
the compiler can be re-targeted more easily than the interpreter can be
ported. They tried that justification with Java and now everybody is writing
JIT compilers IN ADDITION to porting the byte code interpreter. I hear from
the Java people that its getting to be simpler to "acquire" a JIT compiler
and retarget the output than it is to port the JVM.
The only justification for interpreters that I know is that they are easier
to interactively debug in. Ya? No?
Maybe the tokens take less space than a compiled program?
True that there are millions of flavors of BASIC, C, Pascal and FORTH. The
many flavors of JavaScript just about drives some of us (I'm part time) web
programmers to the loony bin. (How to make a million bucks: Come up with a
code generator for JavaScript that has selectable "compatibility" settings
and that takes JavaScript-that-is-correct-for-one-browser as input and
produces JavaScript-that-will-run-on-several-browsers as output). But the
real point is that nobody has to re-learn how to use the language. How Perl
is surviving is beyond me. Great language, but I can't seem to learn it. If
you want to sell XPL0, rename it to XPascaL0 or something like that and
dress it up to look more traditional.
You could have the Pascal SX to compete with the BASIC Stamp. <GRIN> Good
market with educational facilities and Delphi programmers.
ReplyYou must be a member of the
piclistmailing list
(not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the
piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
TakeThisOuTgeocities.com 1-619-652-0593