|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2016-12-05. : 3:48 am]  jjf28 -- ok I suppose programming languages have to be formalized, I withdraw the point[2016-12-05. : 3:46 am] CecilSunkure -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: however, by that definition I also must class a compiled C executable as a program that's doing compilation, so long as it has any input that can alter its execution path that input is usually not a programming language though.[2016-12-05. : 3:46 am] lil-Inferno -- Mini Moose 2707Mini Moose 2707 shouted: Wikipedia is SJW liberal bullshit tho. C|X^ DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD[2016-12-05. : 3:46 am] jjf28 -- however, by that definition I also must class a compiled C executable as a program that's doing compilation, so long as it has any input that can alter its execution path[2016-12-05. : 3:44 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Here's another one: A compiler is a special program that processes statements written in a particular programming language and turns them into machine language or "code" that a computer's processor uses. using that definition I accept your argument[2016-12-05. : 3:44 am]  Moose -- lil-Infernolil-Inferno shouted: CecilSunkure Cuz I knew that no matter what I said you could just say "y", and how can we even prove it LMAO Post your tax returns, fam[2016-12-05. : 3:43 am] CecilSunkure -- lil-Infernolil-Inferno shouted: CecilSunkure Cuz I knew that no matter what I said you could just say "y", and how can we even prove it LMAO I would say n if u made more[2016-12-05. : 3:43 am] lil-Inferno -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: lil-Inferno get out. you brought up your stack superiority and failed to back it up Cuz I knew that no matter what I said you could just say "y", and how can we even prove it LMAO[2016-12-05. : 3:43 am] CecilSunkure -- It just says "turns", like translate, transform, one format to another, COMPILER[2016-12-05. : 3:42 am] CecilSunkure -- Notice how it doesn't say CREATE NEW MACHINE INSTRUCTIONS AT THAT VERY MOMENT[2016-12-05. : 3:41 am] CecilSunkure -- Here's another one: A compiler is a special program that processes statements written in a particular programming language and turns them into machine language or "code" that a computer's processor uses.[2016-12-05. : 3:40 am] jjf28 -- existing instructions are fed, these are not created, therefore no new code was created[2016-12-05. : 3:40 am] CecilSunkure -- lil-Infernolil-Inferno shouted: worrying about performance in 2016 get out. you brought up your stack superiority and failed to back it up[2016-12-05. : 3:39 am] jjf28 -- by that definition pure assembly code changing a register is compiling[2016-12-05. : 3:39 am] CecilSunkure -- Bytecode in, a translation occurs (compilation), and instructions are fed to the CPU[2016-12-05. : 3:37 am] CecilSunkure -- Doesn't matter if the output was already laid it in a nice "table" and we just look into it to pull out the correct pieces at the correct time. That's still a transformation of one kind of code to another[2016-12-05. : 3:36 am] CecilSunkure -- If the input is different from the output, then there's a change of one type of code to another[2016-12-05. : 3:36 am] CecilSunkure -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: there's no compilation step during the lifecycle of a program if all of the machine code existed beforehand That's not true[2016-12-05. : 3:35 am] jjf28 -- there's no compilation step during the lifecycle of a program if all of the machine code existed beforehand[2016-12-05. : 3:34 am] jjf28 -- it's not machine code out, it's feeding existing machine code (code that existed before the program ran) in[2016-12-05. : 3:34 am] CecilSunkure -- Bytecode in, machine code out. Compiler. There's no arguing against it[2016-12-05. : 3:33 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: jjf28 except it does. Look at input at output. Notice they are different. That's a compiler there is no output, there's just execution[2016-12-05. : 3:33 am] Moose -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Thing is I don't care about your hipster "direct interpretation". Every week you hipsters will come up with new names to try and hide your performance tradeoffs They prefer the term "code artisan" to hide their IRL performance tradeoffs C|X^DDDD[2016-12-05. : 3:33 am] CecilSunkure -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: I'm alleging that that does not happen except it does. Look at input at output. Notice they are different. That's a compiler[2016-12-05. : 3:33 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: Thing is I don't care about your hipster "direct interpretation". Every week you hipsters will come up with new names to try and hide your performance tradeoffs ??? I'm not trying to hide anything, it's a huge performance hit to interpret directly[2016-12-05. : 3:32 am] CecilSunkure -- Thing is I don't care about your hipster "direct interpretation". Every week you hipsters will come up with new names to try and hide your performance tradeoffs[2016-12-05. : 3:32 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: C executables are compiled once, java anything is compiled every time it runs you're not getting what direct interpretation is...[2016-12-05. : 3:31 am] CecilSunkure -- We're talking about it because you didn't like what I said and brought it up[2016-12-05. : 3:31 am] CecilSunkure -- C executables are compiled once, java anything is compiled every time it runs[2016-12-05. : 3:31 am] jjf28 -- and if it's not "compiling" more than a C executable is "compiling" then why the hell are we even talking about this[2016-12-05. : 3:30 am] CecilSunkure -- You don't have to create new machine instructions to match the definition of a compiler...[2016-12-05. : 3:29 am] jjf28 -- that's not compiling, you're not changing one type of code into another type of code[2016-12-05. : 3:29 am] CecilSunkure -- jjf28jjf28 shouted: CecilSunkure in the case of direct interpretation there is no process of creating machine code that did not previously exist, to be fed to the hardware. The entire JVM is written, no new code is generated, the register values are different and existing routines are invoked in new and interesting ways So the JVM is acting like a "table" of pre-computing machine code instructions. When we read bytecode, it is translated into this "table". Compilerrrr[2016-12-05. : 3:28 am] jjf28 -- CecilSunkureCecilSunkure shouted: If you can't feed that bytecode as-is to the hardware, then you require a compiler in the case of direct interpretation there is no process of creating machine code that did not previously exist, to be fed to the hardware. The entire JVM is written, no new code is generated, the register values are different and existing routines are invoked in new and interesting ways |
Members Online: Roy, O)FaRTy1billion[MM]
Roy, O)FaRTy1billion[MM]