6 Jan
2012
6 Jan
'12
10:59 a.m.
On Jan 6, 2012, at 1:37 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 6 Jan 2012 at 9:14, David Riley wrote:
Well, that's why I waver on it. It *can be* a compiled language, and the more
optimized versions of it are. But it's sort of a bizarre anomaly as languages go,
since it's also usually at least partly interpreted (especially when running
interactively, with the notable exception of ColorForth which actually compiles as you
type).
- Dave
Well, again, it depends on whether you count
interpreters. Forth
interpreters are quite often done in assembly. They also often
progress to compilation as well.
I have a difficult time calling Forth a "compiled language", though
I'll readily grant that it's mostly a matter of sematics. There are
also a couple of other "bootstrapping" lanaguages that, due to their
sparseness (right word?) probably qualify more as alternative
assemblers.