Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:35:03 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Rudolf Polzer <rpolzer AT web DOT de>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: interpreting C ???
In-Reply-To: <slrn9aajjt.7mh.rpolzer@rebounce.rpolzer-lx>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010307092834.20641G-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Rudolf Polzer wrote:

> Why a C interpreter? Do you mean debugging would be easier? No. Do you
> know Turbo Pascal for DOS? RHIDE contains a debugger frontend just as
> good, if not better. When your program crashes, you are pointed to the
> errorneous line. You have comfortable source-level debugging. Why an
> interpreter?

Try working in some interpreted language some day, such as Lisp, or 
Smalltalk, or even Logo, and you will see the difference.  Even GDB with 
its ability to call functions in the debuggee cannot change the 
fundamental property of a compiled language: compile- and link-time 
limits are static and cannot be changed at run time.  For example, you 
cannot redefine a data structure or a function unless you end the 
debugging session and recompile.

The advantages of an interpreted language are too numerous to list.  
(There are, of course, disadvantages as well.)