OpenEuphoria

Re: Compiler status

• Posted by (censored) <dobehe at EUDORAMAIL.COM> Jul 14, 2000
• 564 views

--



>> > Despite the fact that we all keep saying "compiler,"
>> > I believe the gizmo Rob described was a "translator."
>> > You put in Euphoria and you get out C source,
>> > which you then feed into a C compiler.
>>
>> A compiler is a translator from a source language to a lower-level
>> target language.
>>
>> A C compiler translates the C language to machine language.
>>
>> The Euphoria compiler translates Euphoria into C.
>
>That's a translator, not a compiler. You could also call it a
>"pre-processor,' without complaint from me. I assume you're asserting
>here that Euphoria is a higher level language than C, with which I
>might agree. I disagree that a compiler produces a "lower level"
>language - a compiler produces specifically "machine code."

It does? My Java *compiler* produces "Virtual Machine" Byte Code, not machine
code. Though I must give you that, the phrase "translating to C source code"
seems more logical than "compiling to C source code". Though the nature of the
word "compile" is too ambiguous when not compared to standards and history of
computing.

If it works, I'll call it whatever it wants to be called :)

Blah.


Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at
http://www.eudoramail.com