interpreter vs. compiled

[Fuzzyman]

On Jul 27, 6:02 am, castironpi <castiro... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 11:04 pm, Tim Roberts <t... at probo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > castironpi <castiro... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Compiling a program is different than running it.  A JIT compiler is a
> > >kind of compiler and it makes a compilation step.  I am saying that
> > >Python is not a compiler and in order to implement JIT, it would have
> > >to change that fact.
>
> > And I'm saying you are wrong.  There is NOTHING inherent in Python that
> > dictates that it be either compiled or interpreted.  That is simply an
> > implementation decision.  The CPython implementation happens to interpret.
> > The IronPython implementation compiles the intermediate language to native
> > machine language.
>
> > >> of Python that uses .NET.  In that case, the code *IS* JIT compiled to
> > >> assembly when the program starts.
>
> > >But still not the user's code, only the interpreter, which is running
> > >in assembly already anyway in CPython.
>
> > In CPython, yes.  In IronPython, no; the user's code is compiled into
> > machine language.  Both of them are "Python".
> > --
> > Tim Roberts, t... at probo.com
> > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
> In CPython yes.  In IronPython yes:  the parts that are compiled into
> machine code are the interpreter, *not user's code*.  Without that
> step, the interpreter would be running on an interpreter, but that
> doesn't get the user's statement 'a= b+ 1' into registers-- it gets
> 'push, push, add, pop' into registers.

Well - in IronPython user code gets compiled to in memory assemblies
which can be JIT'ed.

Michael Foord
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/