OpenEuphoria

Re: Is there an Euphoria compiler?

• Posted by lithex <lithex at POP.INTERGATE.BC.CA> May 25, 1998
• 613 views

Thanks to Ralf for his explanation about compilers vs interpreters.

There are a couple of things I don't understand.
 If the"interpreter has to check and do a lot of things at run-time"
it seems that a compiler would be automatically faster because it
could do that checking during compilation, and then not have to do it
when the code runs.

So the way I thought it would work is that if you had bug free source
code that the compiler would do all of the checking that the
interpreter does for each run at the compile time. Then when the
compiled code was run, all of that run time checking would not have
to be done. This is what I meant by reducing the overhead.

I gather, from what Ralf is saying that a compiled program  still
does all of those run time checks and so the overhead is basically
the same. Is this what's going on?

Thanks for the feedback about this.

My compliments to the creators of Euphoria. I really like the
sequences. I really like the flexible variable types. I really like
the debugging tools. I've been porting a program from my Atari into
Euphoria and it's only taken me a day to do almost 200 lines of code.

Bye
Martin