interpreter vs. compiled
castironpi at gmail.com
Sun Jul 27 07:02:07 CEST 2008
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.
More information about the Python-list