3 ms·
I literally posted the links to the AOT Python compiler and to the C++ interpreter.
by okaleniuk 4y ago
I literally posted the links to the AOT Python compiler and to the C++ interpreter.
- ddalex 4y agoA theoretical difference without practical impact; nobody uses these - sure you can implement a C++ interpreter in hardware if one so wishes, but if the industry doesn't use it, what's the good of it ?
- messe 4y agoThe commenter above you said: > general real world implementation By this they mean the real-world-implementation that is in general use, which in this case is interpreted. Yes, Python can be compiled and C++ can be interpreted. 99% of the time, they're not though. When somebody says X language is interpreted, they mean that the most common and widely implementation is an interpreter. That's a useful bit of information to know about a language. "Correcting" them and saying that all languages can be interpreted OR compiled, doesn't really add anything of value to the discussion, other than to label yourself as a pedant.
- okaleniuk 4y agoCounterexample. Numba is a Python compiler for heterogeneous computing. We adopted it last year and stopped rewriting code in C++ to run it on GPGPU. On one hand, the conception from the 90s based on the most common Python implementation, on the other - a compiler that saves us tons of money. Which one adds value again?
- mindcrime 4y agoI literally posted the links to the AOT Python compiler and to the C++ interpreter. That would be important in high-school debate club. In the real world, most people don't care about obscure edge cases and pedantry. In the industry vernacular, Python is an "interpreted language" and C++ is a "compiled language". Arguing against that in anything other than a highly (highly!) specialized context is just lighting candles in the wind.