On May 19, 8:09 pm, Lou Pecora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Bruno Desthuilliers schreef: > > > 1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these > > > terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an > > > implementation of a language. > > > > 2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code. > > > You keep saying that, and in theory you're right. But I'm still inclined > > to disagree with it, since the practical reality is different. Python is > > indeed compiled to byte code, but if you compare that byte code with > > assembly code you'll see that there's a whole world of difference > > between the two, largely because of the dynamical nature of Python. Fact > > is that Python was designed from the start to run on a virtual machine, > > not on the native hardware. > > > C OTOH was designed to be compiled to assembly code (or directly to > > machine code) and as a result there are no (or virtually) no > > implementations that interpret C or compile it to bytecode. > > But how about this C/C++ interpreter. Dr. Dobbs article: > http://www.ddj.com/cpp/184402054. Title and first two paragraphs: > > Ch: A C/C++ Interpreter for Script Computing > Interactive computing in C > > Ch is a complete C interpreter that supports all language features and > standard libraries of the ISO C90 Standard, but extends C with many > high-level features such as string type and computational arrays as > first-class objects. >
If you still end up chasing pointers to implement your data structures then its still hampered. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list