This is a really cool piece of history! Thank you. I'll admit I'm somewhat fuzzy here - it maybe a bit too meta for me or perhaps I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Isn't interpreting n levels deep also linear in n? Only difference between the two approaches I see is that compiler lets you persist the fruits of its labor so you don't have to start from scratch every time. Couldn't you accommodate this with an interpreter (with some effort) although at this point it becomes a compiler I suppose. Definitely fuzzy here.
> But when going n levels deep, the total execution time with a compiler > is linear in n, and with an interpreter it's exponential. > > That makes interpreting interpreters impractical when n gets large (even > with n around 3 or 4); whereas compiling compilers can be done even for > larger n. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/2f288d86-d90c-4881-b001-389b580fece8o%40googlegroups.com.
