Pike might be more optimized than Perl and Python but that doesn't make it fill a different gap in the sense that I believe the person who wrote
this language closes the gap between compilerlanguages and unoptimized interpreted languages.
meant. Well, perhaps if one interprets "unoptimized interpreted languages" literally. But then Perl or Python don't count as unoptimized either.
There's probably a difference in the amount of optimization but that doesn't make Pike qualitatively different since it's not _designed_ to allow a different level of optimization.
as for java, would it not loose its platform independance if optimized to machine code?
Only if it's saved and those binaries are used for distribution. I've gathered that JIT compilers are common, and there the machine dependent code is only kept in RAM.
Pike wouldn't be platform independent either if the dumped files were the common way of distribution.
/ Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS
Previous text:
2003-10-25 16:00: Subject: Re: pike fills a gap?
but this only means that pike could be optimized even more and it is not as optimized as compiled languages. this does not contradict pike being more optimized than other interpreted languages. if pike is not more optimized then my statement was false to begin with.
as for java, would it not loose its platform independance if optimized to machine code? there are java compilers but those produce regular platformdependant binaries, killing one of the advantages of java.
greetings, martin.
/ Brevbäraren