| ??? 11/12/11 12:42 Read: times |
#184677 - You missed the point! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
Even in compiled languages I am able to write - and have written, on uncountable occasions - errors which revealed themselves only later. Yes, of course - but that was not the point! The point was that you can't have undected source-code syntax or semantics errors (eg, undefined variables) There are of course so many variants of the "interpreted language" paradigm, with various minor points for and against Indeed - but I was talking about the specific claim that removing the "build" step is an "advantage" |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Interpreted Languages? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sometimes it's hidden | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| p-code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| P-code and others | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| interpreter/compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Debatable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not necessarily machine code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Definitely debatable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Ofcourse not | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| runtime errors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You can't | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You missed the point! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not always worth it with interpreted languaes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I like your thinking | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Many FORTH implementations are interpreted, aren't they? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Forth | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe a comparison? | 01/01/70 00:00 |