3 ms·

> There's Forth immediate words, there's Lisp macros and to a lesser extend there's C++ templates (which are Turing-complete). This is true. It's not what we h

> There's Forth immediate words, there's Lisp macros and to a lesser extend there's C++ templates (which are Turing-complete). This is true. It's not what we have been discussing so far, but yes, there is also a notion of executing code at compile time. We might call compile-time code execution "outer interpretation", but that would still be less clear than "compile-time code execution". It would also be different from what you had wanted to call "outer interpretation" so far. > Compilation: translate source code to bytecode Interpretation: translate bytecode into side-effects https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/translate#Verb https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/translate#Verb lists three senses of "translate", the first two of which have six sub-senses each. Non-technical language can be vague. That is why we introduce technical terms to speak of technical things. > You realize you say that on Hacker News? I don't know what you are trying to tell me. Which is a fitting end to this discussion about your insistence on communicating less clearly than you might.

astrobe_ 6y ago
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/translate#Verb https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/translate#Verb lists three senses of "translate" And so do "execute" and "interpret". The fact that you are counting the second set of meanings of translate, which is archaic (who said "words have meaning, not what some related word might have meant in the past"?), shows that you know how weak your argument is. > That is why we introduce technical terms to speak of technical things. Yep. I introduced two technical terms "outer interpreter" and "inner interpreter", along with their definitions. > I don't know what you are trying to tell me. Which is a fitting end to this discussion about your insistence on communicating less clearly than you might. Being able to accept that others may have a different terminology, embrace it and speak with their words: this is communication. You don't have a monopoly on the meaning of words.

astrobe_ 6y ago

> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/translate#Verb https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/translate#Verb lists three senses of "translate" And so do "execute" and "interpret". The fact that you are counting the second set of meanings of translate, which is archaic (who said "words have meaning, not what some related word might have meant in the past"?), shows that you know how weak your argument is. > That is why we introduce technical terms to speak of technical things. Yep. I introduced two technical terms "outer interpreter" and "inner interpreter", along with their definitions. > I don't know what you are trying to tell me. Which is a fitting end to this discussion about your insistence on communicating less clearly than you might. Being able to accept that others may have a different terminology, embrace it and speak with their words: this is communication. You don't have a monopoly on the meaning of words.