[Home]History of Scripting programming languages/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 4 . . September 26, 2001 9:03 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
Revision 3 . . September 26, 2001 9:00 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
Revision 2 . . September 26, 2001 1:32 am by EdwardOConnor
Revision 1 . . September 26, 2001 1:31 am by EdwardOConnor
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (author diff)

Changed: 8c8
Yeah, I fixed it, but the issues aren't 100% orthogonal, either: Scripting languages are more often interpreted than compiled, and non-scripting languages are more often compiled than interpreted, for the good reason that their syntaxes are designed to make one or the other easier. The text I think reflects this now, but if you can think of a better way to say that, I'd be pleased. --Lee Daniel Crocker
Yeah, I fixed it, but the issues aren't 100% orthogonal, either: Scripting languages are more often interpreted than compiled, and non-scripting languages are more often compiled than interpreted, for the good reason that their syntaxes are designed to make one or the other easier. Anyone who uses the term "scripting language" in even the remotest connection to C is making the term utterly meaningless. C is the ultimate anti-scripting language. Yes, there have been various attempts to interpret C with various levels of success, but all of them are awkward and incomplete because C just isn't designed that way; it expects a compiler and a linker to resolve things. The text I think reflects this now, but if you can think of a better way to say that, I'd be pleased. --Lee Daniel Crocker

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: