From: leathm AT solwarra DOT gbrmpa DOT gov DOT au (Leath Muller)
Message-Id: <199706030213.MAA05034@solwarra.gbrmpa.gov.au>
Subject: Re: Interpreted languages.
To: pweeks AT execulink DOT com (Jeff Weeks)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:13:31 +1000 (EST)
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <5mvc21$aa9@nr1.toronto.istar.net> from "Jeff Weeks" at Jun 2, 97 08:56:33 pm
Content-Type: text
Precedence: bulk

> I agree with the first paragraph.  Some place or another the processor
> is going to have to interpret something.  You say you compile things
> into machine code... you're exactly right... machine CODE.  Code which
> must be interpreted by the processor.  The processor has to look at the
> code in memory and say, "Oh, EA... that means jump" and does a jump. 
> Just because it does this blindingly fast doesn't mean it's not
> interpreted.

Ok, then think of it this way:

	Compiled code is run directly by the processor
	Interpreted code is run by code that is run by the processor

ie: interpreted requires an extra step - thus slower.

Leathal.