Python/Parrot still alive?

[Michael Hudson]

tweedgeezer at hotmail.com (Jeremy Fincher) writes:

> llothar at web.de (Lothar Scholz) wrote in message news:<6ee58e07.0402091917.13fdaa8e at posting.google.com>...
> > Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote in message news:<4027ECDE.AB5BE4B6 at engcorp.com>...
> > > Lothar Scholz wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote in message news:<c068ah$o0p$00$1 at news.t-online.com>...
> > > > 
> > > > > Some interpreters don't have virtual machines, e.g. Tcl did not
> > > > > have one until Tcl 8 or so. OTOH, not all virtual machines are
> > > > 
> > > > So Ruby is an interpreter and not a virutal machine ?
> > > 
> > > Does Ruby have a "byte code" such as Python and Java have?
> > 
> > No. It keeps the parse tree in memory and traverse it during
> > evaluation. Same as all lisp interpreters(?!?!).
> 
> Definitely not the same as Lisp.  In actuality, a Common Lisp
> implementation that compiles to bytecode rather than native code is
> uncommon; the majority of quality (i.e., complete) implementations
> compile to native code.

Well, yeah, but I think what happens to stuff you type into the repl
of e.g. CMUCL could be described as traversing the parse tree.  CMUCL
has a bytecode compiler and a native compiler *as well*, but I think
you have to ask for them.  SBCL (and some others: Corman, MCL)
compiles absolutely everything to native code, I think.

Cheers,
mwh

-- 
  If i don't understand lisp, it would be wise to not bray about
  how lisp is stupid or otherwise criticize, because my stupidity
  would be archived and open for all in the know to see.
                                                -- Xah, comp.lang.lisp