On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 06:41, Pigeon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:53:34PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 19:35, Britton wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Bijan Soleymani wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:25:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > [snip] [snip] > > > > You might want to try Python as a prototyping, and even implementation, > > language. It has many graphics libraries that are coded in C for > > speed. Thus, you get the benefits of a VHLL plus a LLL (low level > > language) when speed is needed. > > Is there any reason why any of these complex scripting languages have > to be interpreted, as opposed to compiled? > > Some quite complex packages are around which have been written in > such languages; Perl seems to be both common and expensive. It would [snip] > > To me, it seems that the obvious solution is to run the script through > a Perl compiler, and produce a binary executable that should execute > at the same order of speed as any other compiled HLL code. Why is this > not done? Is it simply that nobody's bothered to write a Perl > compiler, or is there some infelicity in the design of Perl that makes > it impractical?
Can't say about Perl, but attempts at a Python compiler have only been partially successful, because Python is so dynamic. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jefferson, LA USA "I have created a government of whirled peas..." Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 12-May-2002, CNN, Larry King Live -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
