On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Mathew Kurian wrote: > In response to synx and Professor Bloch: > As long as the processor can only read only numbers (binary), Racket cannot > be interpreted by the machine before being translated into another language > such as Assembly. Assembly is then translated to numbers or binary/machine > code If that is the case, Racket has to be an interpreted language since it > is layered on Assembly. Or I may just be completely wrong in my perception of > that part.
There is a historical distinction between "compiled" and "interpreted" languages. This distinction is fuzzy and getting fuzzier. For instance, it turns out in most modern processors that the assembly language is actually "compiled" on the fly by the microprocessor, which determines how to allocate its internal resources. The more traditional complicating factor are JITs (PLT Racket has one), that generate assembly language instructions from internal representations as the program is running. Short version: don't try to distinguish "compiled" from "interpreted" systems. Unless you're just *trying* to start a flame war... :) John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
