4 ms·
I tend to group languages into machine-code, VM, and interpreted. This tend to lead to similar tradeoffs within the group...with the exceptions of Golang. in m
by sdfsdufihwfuhdf 10y ago
I tend to group languages into machine-code, VM, and interpreted. This tend to lead to similar tradeoffs within the group...with the exceptions of Golang.
in my mind:
interpreted = why would you ever use a language like this?
VM = fast, safe, but going to use a lot of memory
machine code = fastest, low level HW access, usually unsafe
- Tuna-Fish 10y agoAlso Swift and Objective-C. For some reason people think they are fast because they are compiled. Yes, they are fast so long as you only write C in them. Actually using their features is typically way slower than Java.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- hota_mazi 10y ago> I tend to group languages into machine-code, VM, and interpreted. This distinction doesn't make much sense in 2017: most languages are blends of all these things with technologies like VM's, JIT, Ahead-of-time compilation, etc...
- sdfsdufihwfuhdf 10y agoUnderneath they're still divisible. AoT is always native machine code. JIT/VM/Bytecode is VM, basically machine code on demand. Then there's interpreted code which has worked the same way for forever