It's been on my to-do list, and bumping up in priority.
Shriram
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Mathew, you'll find lots of programming and even CS texts, including
> contemporary ones, that talk about "interpreted vs. compiled".
>
> However, as you have learned, these de
Mathew, you'll find lots of programming and even CS texts, including
contemporary ones, that talk about "interpreted vs. compiled".
However, as you have learned, these definitions are reviled on the
Racket list and other CS places.
Every time someone who has read of these definitions asks whi
On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:15 PM, Mathew Kurian wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Mathew Kurian wrote:
> 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 I
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 translate
> 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 lang
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, Racke
I mean no disrespext but I'm not sure that this message is correct in
the details. What is the point being made here?
Robby
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, synx wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/13/2010 05:36 PM, Mathew Kurian wrote:
>
>> Racket as a language bui
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/13/2010 05:36 PM, Mathew Kurian wrote:
> Racket as a language built on top of another base language (i.e.
> Assembly or C)
No, racket is not built on top of another base language.
> or is it directly connected to the processor language?
The l
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 07:36:54PM -0500, Mathew Kurian wrote:
> Thank you Professor Brown name for your reply as well.
>
> When I read your reply, does your answer to the first question identify
> Racket as a language built on top of another base language (i.e. Assembly or
> C) or is it directly
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 07:41:41PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 06:29:04PM -0500, Mathew Kurian wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > Recently, I have been trying to understand a bit more about the Racket
> > language itself and today I hit a few questions along the way. So,
Thank you Professor Felleison (not Professor Matthias...my mistake).
It was a very informative and interesting read. I definitely learned a lot.
And indeed I agree, going to the quarks would not be a wise idea.
_
For list-related administrative ta
Thank you Professor Brown name for your reply as well.
When I read your reply, does your answer to the first question identify
Racket as a language built on top of another base language (i.e. Assembly or
C) or is it directly connected to the processor language?
I am not exactly sure.
Thank you
On Oct 13, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Mathew Kurian wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Recently, I have been trying to understand a bit more about the Racket
> language itself and today I hit a few questions along the way. So, here they
> are:
>
> -- Is Racket an interpreted language?
>
No.
> If not, how
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 06:29:04PM -0500, Mathew Kurian wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> Recently, I have been trying to understand a bit more about the Racket
> language itself and today I hit a few questions along the way. So, here they
> are:
>
> -- Is Racket an interpreted language? If not, how
15 matches
Mail list logo
