Re: Is there an Euphoria compiler?
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen wrote:
>
> Even if it was possible, would it be any faster? No
> Would it require more memory? Yes for large programs.
>
> Euphoria's elegance, provided because its language definition is based upon
> the flexibilities of an interpreter, exist because it makes all decisions at
> run time. (actually, those decisions he can make at forehand are done by a
> quick preproccesor that prepares the execution stack).
>
>
> And fixed is off course the oposite of flexibile.
> Like some one else said.. if you want small don't use Euphoria.. if you
> wanne be big .. eh.. :)
>
A couple of thoughts.
I like the fact that, with Euphoria, I can run a source file, a shrouded
file, or a bound file. They all run EXACTLY the same. That is not true
of any other language I have used that allows interpreted running and
compiling. The compiled version always has a few limitations that are
not in the interpreted version.
Now as to size. I am experimenting with running shrouded programs. For
example, I shroud Test.ex to Test.exs. During development I run Test.ex.
For actual use I run Text.exs. The shrouded program is small. Since
Ex.ex or Exw.ex is in my disk cached, the load time for multiple
programs is as fast as loading very small .exe files. Overall, by using
shrouded files, I have small and fast "compiled" programs. There is no
way I would replace Euphoria's way of doing things with the more
cumbersome ways of existing compiled languages. Plus, I get to use my
favorite text editor during development with no loss of ability. For me
using that very powerful editor that I know so well, makes my
development time much faster than using the editors that come with
various IDEs of popular compiled languages.
The short statement of all this. I LIKE the way Euphoria handles the
interpreted/compiled issue. I don't desire a change in this issue.
--
Terry Constant
constant at flash.net
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
