Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cu shell |
In article <vefvo0$k1mm$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:36:26 -0000 (UTC)>
It can mean either. Essentially its a binary that contains directly runnable
CPU machine code. I'm not sure why you're having such a conceptual struggle
understanding this simple concept.
Oh, I understand what you mean; it's your choice of non-standard
terminology that I object to. Admittedly, Microsoft uses the
Or consider x86; most modern x86 processors are really dataflow
CPUs, and the x86 instruction encoding is just a bytecode that
is, in fact, interpreted by the real CPU under the hood. So
where does that fit on your little shrink-to-fit taxonomy? What
I could bore you with the number I've actually "dealt with" including>
military hardware but whats the point.
Weird appeals to experience, with vague and unsupported claims,
aren't terribly convincing.
You've probably programmed the>
occasional PIC or arduino and think you're an expert.
Ok, Internet Guy.
I disagree. Modern linux reminds me a lot of SunOS and HP-UX from back in>
the day.
Then I can only guess that you never used either SunOS or HP-UX.
Anybody serious presumably meaning you.>
Sorry, you've shown no evidence why I should believe your
assertions, and you've ignored directly disconfirming evidence
Really? So java bytecode will run direct on x86 or ARM will it? Please give>
some links to this astounding discovery you've made.
Um, ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazelle
So in your mind google translate is a "compiler" for spoken languages is it?>
To quote you above, "now you're just being silly."
No, it was a pre-compiler. Just like Oracles PRO*C/C++.>
Nope.
I know the important ones. You've dug out some obscure names from google>
that probably only a few CS courses even mention never mind study the work of.
>
Ok, so you aren't familiar with the current state of the field
as far as systems go; fair enough.
Aho, Sethi, and Ullman: "Simply stated, a compiler is a program
that reads a program written in one language -- the _source_
language -- and translates it into an equivalent program in
another language -- the _target_ language."
So it would seem that your definition is not shared by those who
quite literally wrote the book on compilers.
Look, I get the desire to want to pin things down into neat
little categorical buckets, and if in one's own experience a
"compiler" has only ever meant GCC or perhaps clang (or maybe
Microsoft's compiler), then I can get where one is coming from.
But as usual, in its full generality, the world is just messier
than whatever conceptual boxes you've built up here.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.