Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!zurich.ai.mit.edu!markf From: markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Mark Friedman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: A comment on language wars. Message-ID: Date: 19 Mar 91 18:24:44 GMT References: <2400032@otter.hpl.hp.com> <-K.9TE3@xds13.ferranti.com> <8O=9X44@xds13.ferranti.com> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Reply-To: markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab. Lines: 31 In-reply-to: peter@ficc.ferranti.com's message of 14 Mar 91 20:54:20 GMT In article <8O=9X44@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: In article markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu writes: > Yes. But note that the code for the procedure is built once; > only the environment needs to be built at runtime, assuming that > any environment needs to be built at all (the compiler may > determine that some procedures don't need an environment). OK, so there's where the semantics of the interpreter are implemented, in the bits and peices that build and maintain these environments without bothering the programmer. C'mon. There is no interpreter hiding in there. My point about building the code for the peocedure only once had nothing to do with interpreters. It was just a point about efficiency. The semantics of Scheme (or most other languages with first class procedures) does not require an interpreter. Why do you think first class procedures need interpreters? -Mark -- Mark Friedman MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab 545 Technology Sq. Cambridge, Ma. 02139 markf@zurich.ai.mit.edu