Semi-OT: Programming Question

[Brian Densmore]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. Hageman
> 
> ...
> Seriously, I do not group C# into realm of interpreted 
> languages.  I would 
> agree that the line is blurring now that we are starting to see the 
> compilers for interpreted languages, but one can still use those 
> interpreted languages as a simple tool to assist in quick 
> shell tricks.
I'll agree with you that there is no interactive interpreter.
But interpreted means it has to pass through an interpreter for
the computer to use it, not through the programmer. So, I'll continue to
say it is interpreted and not compiled, because that is what it is. I 
don't care how complex or how many bells and whistles it has in the end
it's interpreted before it's usable by the bare metal. I learned how
to program using machine language, and then assembly. I wrote a "compiler"
inside GW-Basic in 1980. So I know a little something about compiled
versus interpreted. I don't care what the MS salespitch says is compiled.

So you can call it compiled since it's compiled into bytecode but then you
have to call java compiled too. 

I disagree also that an interactive interpreter for C# would be useful. You could
test out lines of code and procedures from inside it. I don't use C#, I haven't
had the opportunity at work and have no need at home. At work it's all VB.
Of course work is over, this job is gone and I probably won't be sending anymore email
from this address.

I understand your position, but still consider it wrong from a purely
technical perspective.

Peace,
Brian "Jack" Densmore

Jack of many trades, master of a few.
Don't know jack about brain surgery,
but if you hum a few bars I could argue about that one too. 
;')