He said interpreted language doesn't have compile-time only in runtime! this is a commune mistake repeated by many people, actually, interpreter languages do have a compile-time, the only difference from compiled languages is in backend compiling, the compiler is composed of 2 main parts, the front-end compiler which includes: lexer, parser, and types checker, and those happen in the front compiling whatever the language is compiled or interpreted both have the same architecture in this part, and if a mistake occurs here it will be considered a compile-time error even for an interpreted language, and in the backend compiling there are optimizer, generator, and optionally linker then emitter that sends code to the execution and here the main difference, in the interpreted languages the executor will not wait for the generator to finish the translation of the whole code then passed to the execution like in the complied languages, instead, the generation and the execution will happen in the same time, statement by statement, everytime time the generator finished the translation of statement it will be passed immediately to the execution and so on for the next statements, and if an mistake occurs here here it will be considered as a runtime error for the interpreted language, so this the only main diffrence between compiled languages and interpreted languges, so the interpreter is just a compiler with diffrent type of execution.
The language is called Swift, but it takes an hour to compile. So not so swift ;) I was a hobbiest game programmer in the 90s in high school, and I could fully relate to not relying on the C compiler and writing code straight in assembly language, particularly for graphic engines. I did a speed test of a put pixel written in C vs pure machine code, and the machine code one was about 30 times faster.
This guy knows his stuff. Very good presentation!
This is a pretty good explaination for a quite complicate problem. Thank you very much for doing this talk and also upload to youtube. best regards
He said interpreted language doesn't have compile-time only in runtime! this is a commune mistake repeated by many people, actually, interpreter languages do have a compile-time, the only difference from compiled languages is in backend compiling, the compiler is composed of 2 main parts, the front-end compiler which includes: lexer, parser, and types checker, and those happen in the front compiling whatever the language is compiled or interpreted both have the same architecture in this part, and if a mistake occurs here it will be considered a compile-time error even for an interpreted language, and in the backend compiling there are optimizer, generator, and optionally linker then emitter that sends code to the execution and here the main difference, in the interpreted languages the executor will not wait for the generator to finish the translation of the whole code then passed to the execution like in the complied languages, instead, the generation and the execution will happen in the same time, statement by statement, everytime time the generator finished the translation of statement it will be passed immediately to the execution and so on for the next statements, and if an mistake occurs here here it will be considered as a runtime error for the interpreted language, so this the only main diffrence between compiled languages and interpreted languges, so the interpreter is just a compiler with diffrent type of execution.
This was sensational. Thanks so much for sharing! I learned a lot from this
Good presentation, thanks!
This was a very nice talk, easy, fun to listen to, and informative.
good stuff mate
16:57 hey bro 🤗
Thrilled to see the depth of knowledge Omer Sir have
great presentation!
Nice explanation!
The language is called Swift, but it takes an hour to compile.
So not so swift ;)
I was a hobbiest game programmer in the 90s in high school, and I could fully relate to not relying on the C compiler and writing code straight in assembly language, particularly for graphic engines. I did a speed test of a put pixel written in C vs pure machine code, and the machine code one was about 30 times faster.
You could've omitted the 90s part. It's abundantly clear
Thanks
this guy is hot, he is super hot.. haha. Great explanation
As interesting as this is, im still going to write real compilers
I'm pretty sure he is just passionate about the topic, but it just sounds like he is yelling at you