6 ms·
> But there are also interpreted interpreters aren't there? I mean, not in use.... What would be the point? Every other interpreter worth using is AOT compiled
by dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y ago
> But there are also interpreted interpreters aren't there?
I mean, not in use.... What would be the point? Every other interpreter worth using is AOT compiled, it's hardly something to boast about.
One exception might be JRuby, I suppose. Kind of a strange comparison to go out of your way to disabuse.
- mac01021 10y agoNot strange at all. The main language inspiring pixie is clojure, whose interpreter runs on the JVM. I might even go so far as to say that the main reason to use pixie is because you want to write clojure but can't afford to use a JVM for the task at hand
- jibalt 10y agoThere's no such thing as the Clojure interpreter. Clojure programs are translated into Java bytecode, which runs on the JVM, which is a native program. (see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3107299/how-do-clojure-programs-compilers-interpreters-actually-work http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3107299/how-do-clojure-pr...) Pixie programs are translated into Pixie bytecode, which runs on the Pixie VM. Bytecode is, by definition, not "native".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 10y agoIf we're going by the traditional idea of "bytecode interpreter" or "threaded interpreter", clojure is emphatically not one of them. It JIT compiles the lisp to JVM bytecode; the equivalent in Pixie would be JIT compiling to native code. IIRC with RPython/pypy the two techniques are interleaved, but most users I've seen opt for some JIT optimization.