<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
David Zmick wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:c06c4b6b0907101840g106fab41obdf10fd1d47c6c65@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Me and a cousin of mine where discussing the speed of
compiled languages vs the speed of interpreted languages and the
subject of compiling interpreted languages came up. Languages like
Java that are compiled down to bytecode can then be compiled to machine
code, but I was under the impression that concept was impossible with
smalltalk. Why is this? </blockquote>
<br>
I have no idea why you're under that impression; it's perfectly
possible to compile Smalltalk to machine code. :-)<br>
<br>
There are many existence proofs, such as VisualWorks, Exupery, and Cog.<br>
<br>
(BTW, the jargon is Just In Time compilation, or JITting).<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Josh<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:c06c4b6b0907101840g106fab41obdf10fd1d47c6c65@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">And, I know there is a project to build a compiler for
smaltalk, what is the concept behind it?<br>
<br>
thanks<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
David Zmick<br>
/dz0004455\<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://david-zmick.co.cc">http://david-zmick.co.cc</a><br>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>