Re: Before you go on.....
> I don't have much experience with DOS Extenders, but I believe they
> basically provide extra functions for programs to use. A compiler
> converts source code into machine code. bind.ex is not a compiler
> because it only attaches the source code to ex.exe; it doesn't convert
> it to machine code.
There is no real definition of a compiler vs interpreted.
Take the JIT-Technology... it compiles Java-code and then executes it. It thus
takes source code and executes it.
Its an interpreter. But what if I would bin the interpreter and the java-source
code together ?
The code is not compiled yet, but it is an executable, and will run as fast as a
compiled program.
My point is just that, even if you would make a compiler out of interpreter like
Euphoria, the eventual program would not be so
much different than the one you now have. There would only be a few 'jumps'
extra here and there.
Why ? Because many parts of the program use the same routine, we thus call it.
Machine code to call such routines, or a
stack-based interpreter that call those routines: little difference. There would
only some extra jump routines.
However, in theory, it could *optimize* your code at the cost of compile-time.
But I don't know any strong optimization that takes too long to be happening in
the interpreter.
Ralf
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
