Re: [MUD-Dev] Storing tokens with flex & bison

[Kevin Littlejohn <darius#connect,com.au>]

>>> cg#ami-cg,GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA wrote
 
> Byte-code execution really only makes sense, I believe, for a strongly
> typed language. If run-time checks and conversions are needed, they will
> likely cost far more time than the basic interpretation of the code, and
> so going to byte-code instead of staying with something more direct, could
> be a waste of time, in that byte-code won't speed execution up much.

...python seems to gain from using byte-code rather than straight
interpretation, and it's most definately _not_ strongly typed or static
in it's variable definitions.

I think there's a step or two there in just tokenising the code, and wrapping
it in the appropriate references to global namespaces, function/object
structures, and so forth, that you win on by pre-tokenising/bytecoding.  It
also makes a nice compact way to shovel code around, if you're db'ing/undb'ing
it.

What about LPC?  Does it do the same thing - I seem to recall the words
"semi-compiled", from my vague memories of working with it...?

KevinL



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev#kanga,nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev