|
in reply to Re: Re: Re: Perl for the Masses?
in thread Perl for the Masses?
What do you mean partially interpretted?
The scripts are scripts. Unless Perl performs a compilation
procedure to change parts of your script into machine code at
run time, it is totally interpretted. There's nothing wrong with this.
Mind you, there are plenty of things you will never catch me
doing in perl. It's a nice language, it's a useful language.
I love it, BUT... You certainly CAN'T do some of the things that you
can do in C or even in VB in perl.
There is no inline assembly.
Addressing memory is something you would have to do
through a pm, with supplemental code.
You'll never write an operating system or even load
executable code (note I said load executable code, not
run an executable), in perl, at least not perl 5.6, and not in any practical sort of way. Again, there's nothing wrong with this. Languages all have their niches. I would never do anything I use perl for in Prolog, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to abandon prolog. I think that people should be less "I'm a perl coder," "I'm a C/C++ coder," and more "I'm a coder, and I'm going to pick the appropriate language for this task." If nothing else, it is much more professional.
Just Another Perl Backpacker |
Re:{5} Perl for the Masses?
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Jul 25, 2001 at 22:22 UTC
|
Perl does a compilation of your script to opcodes, then interprets those opcodes within a VM. (This, of course, is making the statement that all VM-compiled code is, at bottom, interpreted.) So, it's as compiled as Java is. The main difference between Perl and Java (as I see it and relevant to our discussion) is that Perl makes no pretensions to being a "compiled" language and, frankly, is proud of its interpretive nature. Java wants to play with "the big boys", so hypes up the fact that it compiles to some form of machine code. (That this machine cannot really exist for Java to have any claim of "better-than-C" is completely irrelevant.) | [reply] |
|
