Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid
Well, I guess you're talking about VB.Net Express, which isn't really 'compiled', but rather 'bytecode' which still runs through the framework 'interpreter'
|
Actually the byte code is compiled to native code at runtime by a JIT compiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilgamesh
Building a thing that can do billions of monetary transactions in a fast, efficient and reliable way is not trivial.
|
Okay, I suppose that's true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilgamesh
There are lots of Basic dialects, and I'd say OOBasic comes expecially close. (I don't like Basic either, though.)
|
I like FreeBasic
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilgamesh
In fact, interpreted GNU Common Lisp is faster in the benchmarks that I have seen than when it is compiled (and it is not slow at all).
|
That seems ass backwards at first glance. What I want to know is if that's really necessary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilgamesh
An interpreter can adapt to situations that a compiler just can't foresee.
|
Could you give an example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilgamesh
Remember what I've wrote about mind set? It will be changed. You discover new ways of approaching problems. Some people say that programmers who learn Lisp usually write better C, too.
|
Sounds interesting. Too bad I don't feel like learning languages such as Lisp
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilgamesh
I mean, if you like assembler that is fine, but there are things beyond that you will never see.
|
Could you give an example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilgamesh
Oh come on, that is simply not true in general. You couldn't realistically compress a video sream to MPEG on the fly before y2k (without dedicated hardware). Try Linux without fancy stuff and with a custom made kernel. That will be fast.
|
I mean programs that are heavy while they don't have to be. Perhaps I just have a pessimistic viewpoint