On May 21, 11:59 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno. [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strange enough, no one calls Java or C# 'interpreted languages', while > they (or, to be more exact, their reference implementations) both use > the same byte-code/VM scheme[1]. Java interprets the bytecode in a virtual machine by default. Only code 'hotspots' are JIT compiled to native machine code. Microsoft .NET compiles bytecode to native code on the first invocation, and caches the machine code for later use. Nothing is interpreted. Java can benefit from more runtime information when generating machine code, but incurs the penalty from running an interpreter most of the time. MS .NET is more similar to a static compiler. They currently perform about equally well, sometimes approximating traditional compiled languages like C++. But they do not use the same bytecode VM scheme. Particularly, Microsoft .NET has no virtual machine. > You know, Common Lisp is also an highly dynamic language, and there are > now some optimizing native-code Common Lisp compilers that generate very > efficient binary code. It only tooks about 30 years and way more > ressources than CPython ever had to get there... The speed of Common Lisp with compilers like SBCL and CMUCL comes from optional static typing. This no more magical than what Cython and Pyrex already can do. If we remove the interpreter when Cython or Pyrex supports all features of the Python language, and instead rely on "JIT compilation" by one oth these compilers, we are already there. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
