Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/05/31/09:23:49
You are so off basis with this its not even funny anymore. We don't
have different definitions, your definition just does not fit the "norm"
definition. Not that I'm saying the "normal" defnition is perfect or
impervious, but that's just what it is. I don't care what it is or what
it
looks like, anything that is run in software is interpreted. YES,
QUAKE C HAS A COMPILER, AND YES, IT COMPILES TO A
SIMPLIFIED BYTE CODE! BUT, THAT BYTE CODE ITSELF IS
INTERPRETED! Maybe not the QuakeC code, but the Byte code is,
and THAT is why it's an interpreted language. If it compiled to pure
machine code, and ONLY if it compiled to pure machine code, would
it not be interpreted. Practically EVERY interpreted language goes
through SOME form of pre-compilation now a days. Even the big
compilers, like Visual Basic. At least until the last version, it had
to be compiled, but if you even glanced at the newsgroups you
would have seen people complaining all the time how slow it was
because it was interpreted. It was compiled to a byte code, and
that byte code was interpreted by microsofts runtime basic interpreter.
Sounds suspiciously like QuakeC. Honestly, I can't understand
why you aren't getting my point here.
>----------
>From: Adam[SMTP:adalee AT sendit DOT sendit DOT nodak DOT edu]
>Sent: Friday, May 30, 1997 5:41 PM
>To: Leath Muller
>Cc: Bryan Murphy; djgpp AT delorie DOT com
>Subject: Re: Demos (Was How the Quake source got out)
>
>Or maybe you don't know what I'm talking about... In the BASIC that I
>used to use, it stored it as a textfile and interpreted it from there...
>Kind of like a shell script. QuakeC is COMPILED, and therefore to me it's
>the same as reading the code at runtime and interpreting it, it's
>compiling it into something it knows and working from there... I guess we
>both know what we're talking about, we just have a difference in terms,
>and it's not worth fighting about.
>
>
- Raw text -