1. Re: Interpret() & More suggestions
- Posted by Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen <nieuwen at POP.XS4ALL.NL>
Jun 10, 1997
-
Last edited Jun 11, 1997
> Is Euphoria a compiled or interpreted language? From what I understand it is
> compiled... (Sources are compiled before actually run) But if the compiler is
> left in memory after the compilation is complete, what prevents us from using
> it again? I think that an interpret-function would really kick ass... (as I've
> seen it do elsewhere)
I too had come up with this, i told Robert Craig and he put it in
his suggestion folder (he said)....
The real purpose is you can now have ALL the flexibility of a
oop-language, i suggested to interpret whole routines instead of a
single line, best is (as a see now) is to have both available.
But for performance, the compiling of each line takes too much cpu,
i think, maybe two different functions can be available, one to
compile your sequence with euphoria code and one to run the compiled
code.
Also i suggest the sequence should be handled like a .E file so it
can have intern constants and things..
Why not have a unload routine too ???
Please, Robert Craig, will you respond?
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
