4 ms·
I guess it's all in how you classify it... I'm not sure why "bytecode" vs. "non-bytecode" are an important distinction in the language's usecases, as opposed to
by stmw 6y ago
I guess it's all in how you classify it... I'm not sure why "bytecode" vs. "non-bytecode" are an important distinction in the language's usecases, as opposed to implementation. For example, .Net supports both static compilation and bytecode interpretation, as do most LLVM-backed languages.
- yyyk 6y agoMaybe the better definition would be 'GC languages with a runtime'? There's a distinction between languages that require a runtime and impose a GC (with the associated penalties) and 'low-level' languages like Rust* . I'd say 'GC runtime languages' are somewhat dubious for low latency etc. (but see Unity and ZGC!), while 'low-level languages' are overkill for typical UI/CRUD apps, I don't see any useful advantage for Rust there. * Go would be in the middle I guess - technically requires a runtime, but the runtime is relatively light and all binaries are static - unlike .Net whose static compilation support is frankly rather theoretical right now due to common use of its powerful reflection capabilities.