"compile" vs. "tokenize" (was Re: Password Problem)

[Kenneth Brody]

Fairlight wrote:
> 
> With neither thought nor caution, Kenneth Brody blurted:
> >
> > Well, to be "buzzword compliant", I would say that "filePro compiles to
> > a bytecode for the filePro Virtual Machine".
> >
> > Basically, it gets compiled to machine code.  It's just that the machine
> > that it compiles for is not the physical machine that you're running.
> 
> I'd say you're splitting hairs, Ken.  :)
> 
> Let me put it this way--if that's your criterion, then perl is to be
> categorised as a compiled language without perlcc, perl2exe, PAR/pp, or any
> other of the self-contained-executable generating software available.
> 
> And in the real world, that just isn't how it's viewed.
> 
> I mean, it's your prerogative to view it that way.  I can even understand
> why you're saying it.  I'd just say that I have a quibble with the
> technicalities under which you invoke the definition of 'compiled'.
> 
> No offense, but I'll agree to disagree on this one.
[...]

No problem.  However...

What does it take for you to consider it to be a true "compiler"?

Must it generate native machine code for the system on which the "compiler"
is being run?  In that case, what about cross compilers, which generate
executables for some other platform?

Must the target platform physically exist in the form of hardware?  In
that case, what about Pascal?  The original "compilers" generated code
for a "Pascal virtual machine" (to use today's terminology).  This machine
didn't physically exist in hardware, but was emulated within a Pascal
runtime environment.  (Basically, the same as filePro's tok files.)  It
sounds like you are saying this isn't a true "compiler" since the machine
was only a virtual machine.

However, someone then came along an built a computer that would execute
the Pascal machine code natively in hardware.

Did all of those Pascal "not-really-compilers" all of a sudden become
true "compilers"?  Nothing changed about the "compilers" themselves, yet
this definition would change them from "not really a compiler" to "a true
cross-compiler" overnight.

-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody        | www.hvcomputer.com |                             |
| kenbrody at spamcop.net | www.fptech.com     | #include <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+