From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 2 15:21:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA12980 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:21:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (smtp02.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA12884 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:21:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr09.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA08660; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:21:15 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr09.primenet.com(206.165.6.209) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd008581; Mon Mar 2 16:21:04 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA24739; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 16:21:01 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199803022321.QAA24739@usr09.primenet.com> Subject: Re: A web-based FreeBSD configuration tool. To: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 23:21:00 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Niall Smart" at Mar 2, 98 06:53:58 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > But old isn't necessarily bad, and Java isn't a scripting language. And > > > scripting launguages have a very valuable role in this problem domain. > > > > You must not be running the same JAVA *interpreter* I run... > > Since when has the manner in which a program is "executed" decided if > it is a scripting langauge? Uh, "day one"? > C is translated into assembler which is interpreted by the hardware > in my Intel processor, does that make C or assembler scripting langauges? > No. Right. No. It makes them compiled languages, or more formally, native instruction set languages. JAVA can be this... on JAVA chips. LISP can be this on Symbolics machines. > What if I use the Bochs interpreter? Still no. BOCHs is not an interpreter, it's a simulator. You are confusing interpretation, simulation, and emulation. > You wouldn't make a distinction between imperative, functional and logic > programming languages based on their execution mode, but rather in their > approach to expressing relationships and algorithms, it is the same with > scripting languages. Iterative programming is not ideally suited to interpretation. An interpretive language that allows it to be done anyway is a scripting language. Would you feel more comfortable if I discarded the term "scripting" in favor of "interpretive"? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message