is there a difference betweeen scripting languages and normal coding languages?
>>52214953
Scripts are interpreted whereas programs are compiled.
>>52214953
Do your own schoolwork kid.
Level 3 IT isn't even hard.
>>52214953
not really - the other replies are retarded
>>52215017
This... Scripts are turned into machine code every time you run it. Great for small things, easy to tweak. The "program" is just a textfile with code.
Programs are compiled and are already in ready binary form. Can not tweak it without recompiling the whole thing.
>>52215106
> Scripts are turned into machine code every time you run it
No. Not really.
A instruction set is made and interpreted. The script is never "compiled", just "read and understood".
>>52215135
Well, then I have misunderstood the details..
>>52215017
>>52215135
JIT will blow your minds...
>>52215271
JIT works by compiling code into something closer to assembly than code, that the JIT-framework will understand.
JIT code never hits assembly either. What part am i missing?
>>52215393
JIT just means you're compiling at runtime. You can compile to bytecode or assembly.
>>52215823
You should really read up on JIT then.
It _does not_ hit assembly (Aka bytecode). That would make no sense and would take too many resources.
>>52215883
JIT takes java/CLI bytecode or plain source and turns into platform specific code(assembly). You might be a tad delusional, m8.
>>52215954
Java bytecode != bytecode.
Just like .NET assembly != assembly.
*CIL
>>52215972
>Java bytecode != bytecode.
It is.
>.NET assembly != assembly.
At least you got THAT right.
And JIT turns both of them into x86/whatever assembly.
>>52215954
>and turns into platform specific code(assembly)
Oh, and JIT compiled files are not platform specific. That's why JIT is smart.
You need the JIT framework installed to run a JIT-executeable. Why do you think that is?
MOOOOOOODS
>>52216019
>to run a JIT-executeable
There's no such thing. CIL and java bytecode can be interpreted.
>>52216039
Define a .jar file then. Whatever that is called, you need java installed.
Just like you need .NET framework for a .NET application.
>>52215135
What do you think the cpu does? Parses JavaScript? Everything on your computer is reduced to machine code
>>52216057
It's java bytecode. Earlier versions of android had no JIT but ran the same apps.
>Just like you need .NET framework for a .NET application.
It's AN implementation of the required infrastructure. It can use JIT but is not required to.
Technically programming is just hardware accelerated scripting
>>52216078
Well, in case of interpreters it's just a ton of branching on the interpreter's side.
>>52215883
> assembly (Aka bytecode)
Are you retarded or something? Assembly is a human readable translation of machine code. Bytecode is not assembly, and it isn't machine code either.
Bytecode is a set of instructions that are interpreted by a virtual machine. For example, Java Bytecode is interpreted by the Java Virtual Machine.
>>52216078
/ignored
>>52216092
Yes, and you need Java installed to be able to use java bytecode for any good. That's cause it's not real bytecode (compiled assembly).
The CPU understands assembly directly, and does not need some silly framework.
>>52216132
>and you need Java installed
It's AN implementation as well. There's many of them, you know. Even MS did one, once.
>That's cause it's not real bytecode
Fuck, you are braindead. Go read it yourself, then come back.
>>52216132
> The CPU understands assembly directly
Assembly is NOT MACHINE CODE. It is a 1-to-1 translation of machine code in a readable human format.
And the CPU translates machine code using microcode to whatever it wants.
>>52216132
>it's not real bytecode (compiled assembly)
>>52216132
>>52216156
>>52216171
I've been confusing myself with all those terms and names, yes. I agree with you.
I'm embarrased, back to lurking.
the main difference that actually matters,you faggots,is that interpreted language will always have many bult in functions to ease your work while in others you will always have to write them yourself.
Also,portability of interpreted languages and speed of compiled.
>>52216269
>interpreted language will always have many bult in functions
You missed the point so hard that it reached escape velocity. What you are talking about is the standard library, not the language itself.
>>52216307
the great example of how wrong you are is the C stdlib
>>52216397
It's not part of the language itself.
Machine code is a set of instructions that can be executed directly onto the CPU (or using microcode in modern systems).
Assembly is a human readable, 1-to-1 conversion of machine code. Multiple assembly languages can exist for a single machine, such as AT&T x86 and Intel x86.
Bytecode is a set of instructions that are interpreted by a virtual machine. Java bytecode, for example, is interpreted by the Java Virtual Machine.
Coding languages are any languages that must have the entire program encoded into either machine code or bytecode prior to becoming executable. C and Java are both coding languages.
Scripting languages are any languages that are not compiled into machine code or bytecode. Python and Ruby are both scripting languages.
Just in Time (JIT) compilation is a method of execution that compiles a group of non-machine readable instructions (bytecode or a scripting language) into machine code. Parts of the program are compiled at run time.
why dont you fucking arrogant neet imbeciles just learn from someone who knows
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-compiled-and-interpreted-programming-languages
>>52215135
>The script is never "compiled", just "read and understood".
This is almost always untrue for modern scripting/"interpreted" languages. They usually get quickly compiled to a lower bytecode form.
The REAL distinction between scripting and "normal coding languages" is that scripts are used for small automations or other tasks (see: scripts in video games) and thus are usually suited better for interpreted languages that don't require a lot (e.g.compiling) to get running.
For instance, I could write pretty big programs in python and I doubt it would be called "scripting", although often Python is used as a "scripting language"
Honestly, "scripting" is very nebulous, means different things to different people and isn't very useful as a term to convey information about a language. "interpreted" vs "compiled" is better if you're trying to describe how a programming language is evaluated.
>>52216448
i think any cs grad knows this m8
im not that sure how bytecode works though, we did some stuff with the java vm in one class and i did jack shit, kinda regret it now
Nowadays there's 3 kinds of languages
>it's already compiled
>it has "eval"
>the dev was too lazy to write a compiler
>>52216534
Unfortunately a lot of people here don't seem to have passed any CS classes.
>>52216614
well some of them are it guys, some are cs students or enthusiasts... its alright really
