[REBOL] Re: Is Rebol code smaller?/Compiler!
From: tim:johnsons-web at: 18-Nov-2002 10:21
* Ammon Johnson <[ammon--rcslv--com]> [021118 08:31]:
> HI,
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > > The days of one-lines is long gone :-) But i take it with me when im
> > > programming! Make it small fast and compact (assembly freakoff:-)
> >
> > There should be a rebol compiler or a system to translate rebol
> > code into an Ansi C "dialect", which could then be compiled.
>
> </snip>
>
> This has come up several times and the reason there is no compiler is
> because of the dynamic nature of the language. RT is working on a compile
> function, but it will only really work with heavy number crunching.
> Anything else done in the language is too dynamic to be compiled. ;-)
My comment is rhetorical, I've no need for a rebol compiler, but your
statement leads me to ask the following:
Compilers are available for 'scheme' and 'Lisp', in fact the bigloo
compiler for scheme produces benchmarks at the top of the language
shootout.
Is rebol more dynamic than 'scheme' or 'lisp'?
(bigloo has a syntax for compile-time typing of 'words)
--
Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]>
http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com
http://www.johnsons-web.com
