On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:08:47PM -1000, Shiro Kawai wrote:
> There are many interesting topics in this thread, but I just jump in
> to answer to the last question,
> in hope of providing a datapoint.
>
> You seem to suggest there's a two complete modes, separate compilation
> and integrated
> interpreter.   But actually these are two ends of continuous spectrum,
> and I guess many
> implementations these days fall somewhere between them.

Also, don't forget that most compilers include a REPL as well.
This means that (in a way) interpreted-only Schemes are actually offer
only a _subset_ of what compile-time Schemes offer.

For example with Gambit or Chicken you can use the interpreter, while
completely ignoring the compiler.  Many people do so when writing
scripts for tasks that would generally be done with a shell script.
But when writing more "complete" programs, switching to compiled mode
is usual.  Often you start in interpreted mode and when the program
is finished, maybe for performance reasons, you compile it to a
binary executable.  This offers the rapid turnaround of working in
a REPL while also making it possible to have the decent performance
of a compiled language.
</sales-talk>

Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
							-- Donald Knuth

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports