Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 17/05/2025 05:37, olcott wrote:Did I ever say anything like that? No!On 5/16/2025 11:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:Non sequitur. Your program is neither a compiler nor an interpreter. It doesn't compile C to byte code or anything else because you don't give it any C to compile.On 17/05/2025 04:49, olcott wrote:>
>
<snip>
>It is possible to create a C function that>
simulates the source-code of other C functions.
The essential idea of this is a C interpreter.
No. You clearly have no idea what an interpreter is.
>
A C interpreter translates C, just as a C compiler translates C, the difference being that the compiler writes down the translation (like a book translator in a publishing house) while the interpreter says it out loud, so to speak (like an interpreter at a United Nations meeting).
>
In each case, the input is C, not machine code.
>The actual HHH uses x86 emulation that is way>
over most peoples heads.
Clearly not a C interpreter, then.
>
Modern language are a hybrid between compiling
and interpreting. Java compiles to byte code.
Interpreters translate code line-by-line and immediately execute each one in real-time, without a separate compilation phase. The interpreter effectively runs and translates the program simultaneously. This means changes to the code can take effect instantly, without waiting for compilation. But this flexibility comes at a performance cost relative to compiled programs.All correct. Well read and accurately quoted.
https://thelinuxcode.com/interpreters-c-programming/It's hard to fathom how you could have read the explanation on that Web page and yet somehow continue to believe that you have written a C interpreter.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.