Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steveo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:51:05 +0000
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:33:32 -0600
mschaef@xxxxxxxxxxx (MSCHAEF.COM) wrote:
> If you're writing a compiler for a totally new langauge, you have two
> options:
>
> * Write your compiler in the new language and then manually translate it
> to a language you can actually run.
>
> * Write a compiler for your new langauge in a langauge you can already
> run.
Option 3 - write an interpreter for enough of the language to
interpret the compiler.
--
C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
| http://www.sohara.org/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: MSCHAEF.COM
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- References:
- Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: Matthias Kaeppler
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: MSCHAEF.COM
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- From: MSCHAEF.COM
- Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- Prev by Date: Re: what prgramming laguage
- Next by Date: Re: What languages have simple syntax?
- Previous by thread: Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- Next by thread: Re: Java speed: Reality versus theory?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|