我想更好地理解其中的区别。我在网上找到了很多解释,但它们都倾向于抽象的差异,而不是实际的含义。
Most of my programming experiences has been with CPython (dynamic, interpreted), and Java (static, compiled). However, I understand that there are other kinds of interpreted and compiled languages. Aside from the fact that executable files can be distributed from programs written in compiled languages, are there any advantages/disadvantages to each type? Oftentimes, I hear people arguing that interpreted languages can be used interactively, but I believe that compiled languages can have interactive implementations as well, correct?
开始用“过去的冲击波”来思考
很久很久以前,有一个计算机王国
解释器和编译器。的优点引起了各种各样的争论
一个比另一个。当时的普遍意见是这样的:
解释器:快速开发(编辑和运行)。执行速度慢,因为每个语句都必须被解释为
每次执行的机器代码(想想这对于执行了数千次的循环意味着什么)。
编译器:开发(编辑、编译、链接和运行)缓慢。编译/链接步骤可能会花费大量时间)。快
来执行。整个程序已经是原生机器代码了。
运行时有一到两个数量级的差异
解释程序和编译程序之间存在性能差异。其他的区别
点,例如代码的运行时可变性,也有一些兴趣,但主要是
区别围绕着运行时性能问题。
今天的情况已经发展到这样的程度,编译/解释的区别是
几乎无关紧要。许多
编译语言调用的运行时服务并非如此
完全基于机器代码。而且,大多数解释型语言都被“编译”成字节码
之前执行。字节码解释器非常高效,可以与一些编译器生成的解释器相匹敌
从执行速度的角度来看代码。
典型的区别是编译器生成本机机器码,解释器读取源代码
使用某种运行时系统动态生成机器代码。
如今,经典的诠释者已所剩无几——几乎全部
编译成字节码(或其他一些半编译状态),然后在虚拟“机器”上运行。
从http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-compiled-and-interpreted-programming-languages
There is no difference, because “compiled programming language” and
“interpreted programming language” aren’t meaningful concepts. Any
programming language, and I really mean any, can be interpreted or
compiled. Thus, interpretation and compilation are implementation
techniques, not attributes of languages.
Interpretation is a technique whereby another program, the
interpreter, performs operations on behalf of the program being
interpreted in order to run it. If you can imagine reading a program
and doing what it says to do step-by-step, say on a piece of scratch
paper, that’s just what an interpreter does as well. A common reason
to interpret a program is that interpreters are relatively easy to
write. Another reason is that an interpreter can monitor what a
program tries to do as it runs, to enforce a policy, say, for
security.
Compilation is a technique whereby a program written in one language
(the “source language”) is translated into a program in another
language (the “object language”), which hopefully means the same thing
as the original program. While doing the translation, it is common for
the compiler to also try to transform the program in ways that will
make the object program faster (without changing its meaning!). A
common reason to compile a program is that there’s some good way to
run programs in the object language quickly and without the overhead
of interpreting the source language along the way.
You may have guessed, based on the above definitions, that these two
implementation techniques are not mutually exclusive, and may even be
complementary. Traditionally, the object language of a compiler was
machine code or something similar, which refers to any number of
programming languages understood by particular computer CPUs. The
machine code would then run “on the metal” (though one might see, if
one looks closely enough, that the “metal” works a lot like an
interpreter). Today, however, it’s very common to use a compiler to
generate object code that is meant to be interpreted—for example, this
is how Java used to (and sometimes still does) work. There are
compilers that translate other languages to JavaScript, which is then
often run in a web browser, which might interpret the JavaScript, or
compile it a virtual machine or native code. We also have interpreters
for machine code, which can be used to emulate one kind of hardware on
another. Or, one might use a compiler to generate object code that is
then the source code for another compiler, which might even compile
code in memory just in time for it to run, which in turn . . . you get
the idea. There are many ways to combine these concepts.