Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:28:03 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:

In article <vebi0j$3nhvq$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:

Irrelevant. Lot of interpreters do partial compilation and the JVM does it
on the fly. A proper compiler writes a standalone binary file to disk.

>
Not generally, no.  Most compilers these days generate object
code and then, as a separate step, a linker is invoked to
combine object files and library archives into an executable
binary.

Ok, the compiler toolchain then. Most people invoke it using a single command,
the rest is behind the scenes.

By the way, when many people talk about a "standalone" binary,
they are referring to something directly executable on hardware,

For many read a tiny minority.

without the benefit of an operating system.  The Unix kernel is
an example of such a "standalone binary."

If you're going to nitpick then I'm afraid you're wrong. Almost all operating
systems require some kind of bootloader and/or BIOS combination to start them
up. You can't just point the CPU at the first byte of the binary and off it
goes particularly in the case of Linux where the kernel requires decompressing
first.

Most executable binaries are not standalone.

Standalone as you are well aware in the sense of doesn't require an interpreter
or VM to run on the OS and contains CPU machine code.

Saving to some sort of object image is not a necessary function
of a compiler.

>
Yes it is.

>
So you say, but that's not the commonly accepted definition.
Sorry.

Where do you get this commonly accepted definition from?