4 ms·

> "Compiled" doesn't seem to be inherently virtuous Well, you said that, he didn't. Just something some are looking for. > It sounds like it could be an unne

• carussell 10y ago
  > Well, you said that, he didn't. Er, what? > "Could", huh? Or it "could" be a "necessary proxy".. or it "could" be no proxy at all! I like having a tool that translates source code into machine instructions. Silly ole me huh? How on earth did I ever come up with such an unfounded preference?! Now you tell me what in the heck that could possibly be a proxy for, because I have no idea myself.. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I have no idea what you're saying here, or if you're even saying anything at all (it doesn't sound like it), but it doesn't seem like you understood what I said, either. > Given how Facebook eventually wrote a PHP-to-C compiler, how many Python code-bases end up trying to go CPython or some such, how much JS is transpiled from other languages.. the notion of "liking compilers" isn't entirely exotic To be clear: no one has pursued those things just because people "like compilers". People created those compilers because they like the side effects they bring. They're producing desirable results—things like better performance at runtime, better memory use, et cetera. So I return to my original point: if those things are desirable, then mention those things. That something is compiled is not an attractive pursuit in and of itself, to anybody. After all, you could write a terrible compiler that takes forever to build and generates slow code for an obscure machine that nobody is interested in owning. The mere fact that it compiles does not add anything in its favor, and the same is true for the "good" compilers. "Compiled" is a null proposition. Secondly, please maintain an overall better sense of decorum. The way you responded above is not how we have discussions here.
  • dualogy 10y ago
    > They're producing desirable results—things like better performance at runtime, better memory use, et cetera. So I return to my original point: if those things are desirable, then mention those things My original, admittedly obscured "point" --- why? All these are obvious to anyone here and we store them under the compressed moniker/variable name "compiler" so every HN reader automagically decompresses this moniker upon encounter into the entire range of benefits. People talking about programming languages naturally see no obstacle in this, in fact usage of umbrella terms (esp. when the usual motivation for usage is "whatever benefits are implied by term X, I want them all anyway") makes for more fluid and rapid conversation in all manner of fields. He could have said "I want better performance at runtime, better memory use". How insanely generic, every programmer wants this from any language. Then some clever guy comes and asks "better than?", OP answers "than interpreted languages", then flamewar ensues. Not productive either. Ah well. A curious discussion for sure. =)