* Moritz Lenz [2014-12-06 20:05]:
> First of all, the lines between interpreters and compilers a bit
> blurry. People think of Perl 5 as an interpreter, but actually it
> compilers to bytecode, which is then run by a runloop. So it has
> a compiler and an interpreter stage.
This is sort of a tang
The practical distinction, surely, is that the output of a compiler is
usually kept around, to be run one or more times, whereas the an
interpreter always works with the original human-readable source.
The distinction mattered a lot more when compiling even a trivial
program involved at least the
ually what was run. So a compilation
step, and an interpreting step.
-- Original Message --
Received: 04:37 PM EST, 12/07/2014
From: Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com>
To: Aristotle Pagaltzis Cc: perl6-us...@perl.org
Subject: Re: Definitions: compiler vs interpreter [was: Rationa
* Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> [2014-12-07 22:40]:
> The practical distinction, surely, is that the output of a compiler
> is usually kept around, to be run one or more times, whereas the an
> interpreter always works with the original human-readable source.
Yes, surely that’s it. We all con
ke we agree (minus perhaps my
misunderstanding of how perl handles begin and end blocks, or bytecode..).
G.
-- Original Message --
Received: 08:32 AM EST, 12/10/2014
From: Aristotle Pagaltzis
To: perl6-us...@perl.org
Subject: Re: Definitions: compiler vs interpreter [was: Rationale for
