OpenEuphoria

Re: (No Subject)

• Posted by Michael Bolin <michaeltom at GEOCITIES.COM> May 26, 1998
• 1065 views

> [ Euphoria Compiler ]
> Martin wrote : "I'd be interested in the details. It seems to me that the
> engine that produces the code for the interpreter to send to the CPU could be
> easily modified to send the code to a file ins
> ead. Wouldn't that be a compiler?"
> I think people miss the main reason why Euphoria can't be compiled: The
> Sequence. It is a flexible dynamic data structure. Compiling a data structure
> defined and manipulated as the program runs, in
> esponse to it running, is impossible. Try writing the compiler that can do
> this:
> s = append(s, s[v] & s[j..floor(length(s)/2) + x] )
> or something even more abstract.

No, it's not impossible; a compiler can be written that can do
anything the interpreter can. Moreover, even a straightforward
Euphoria compiler would provide a 2-3x increase in speed for most
programs. Error-checking would not be necessary in a compiler, as the
program could be debugged using the interpreter beforehand, and as
long as the programmer keeps his source code he could change it any
time.
Writing a compiler, though, is not a task to do from scratch; you
would need the source code for EX.EXE to do it.

Regards,

Michael Bolin