AW: [scilab-Users] Why an interpreter?

[Sumit Adhikari]

It is very simple. How do u want to see your result of 5 + 3 = ? . Do you
want to write a program and then save it and then compile it and then run it
to see the result ?
Best way to do such operation is a shell. Thats why these programs are shell
and also an interpreted language so that you can load a particular functions
for
for this purpose. It is only user perspective.
Regards

P.S : If you want to run simulations then compiled codes are good, but for
algorithm design this is possibly the best way.

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Pedro Ledoux <p_ledoux at yahoo.com.br> wrote:

> About compiled languages the best alternative for numerical methods is
> Fortran standart 95. Unlike C and othe common languages, Fortran is
> dedicated to numerical aplications thus it's intrinsic functions are almost
> dedicated to it. In common languages like C, Pascal etc you have Integer and
> real types. Fortran gives you integer, real and complex. All math functions
> like sin, sqrt etc are completly ready to support complex type.
>
> Fortran 95 was an great advance compared with Fortran 77. To turn the
> things more easy to numerial implemetation Fortran let you manipulate a
> vector with 1 line of command, ex: v=cos(i) will turn each element of vector
> v in the cossine of each element of vector i, in a conventional language
> you'd have to use a loop to do it.
>
> Fortran 95 has incorporated also commands for high performance and
> paralelization. When you do something in a loop for i=0:1:10 you says to
> computer that this process must run in order, first for i=0, i=1 i=2 etc. In
> Fortran 95 the command Forall acts in a way like for however you says to
> computer thar the process can be done in any order, as consequence it can
> run in more than one CPU if possible.
>
> Was told thar Scilab let you use Fortran code in the same way as C code.
>
> --- Em *sáb, 2/10/10, Harald Galda, Dr. Eng. (J) <haraldgalda at yahoo.com>*escreveu:
>
>
> De: Harald Galda, Dr. Eng. (J) <haraldgalda at yahoo.com>
> Assunto: AW: [scilab-Users] Why an interpreter?
> Para: users at lists.scilab.org
> Data: Sábado, 2 de Outubro de 2010, 9:44
>
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> Even though I am no expert in the field of compilers and interpreters I
> would like to share some thoughts and observations.
>
> Matlab does have a compiler. The compiler is a separate toolbox  and more
> expensive than Matlab itself or any other toolbox. However, a compiled
> program does not run faster than the interpreted program run in Matlab.
> Maybe a compiled program is a little faster if Matlab is not installed and
> therefore does not occupy any resources such as RAM and disk space.
>
> There is another interesting effect: a function called for the first time
> during a session runs much slower than during all consecutive runs. So it
> seems that the interpreter translates the source code into some intermediate
> code. A function that runs on the Matlab level can access the resources of
> the basis software such as work space and it can display outputs on the
> basis software console. This would be completely impossible if the function
> were compiled as a stand alone program. Running selected parts of a script
> or function also requires interpreted code.
>
> It is possible to call compiled programs written in C from Scilab, Matlab
> or Mathematica. However, these programs usually must exchange data with the
> basis software or functions calling these programs. It takes time to copy
> huge amounts of data or to write them to and read them from disk. Therefore,
> it is not desirable to compile each and any function as a separate program.
> A compiler is necessary for stand alone software, but not for functions run
> inside numerical software.
>
> Stand alone programs are often written in C or C++. There are a lot of
> libraries written in these languages. Moreover, there are some wide spread
> development environments for C and C++. Embedded Matlab, Simulink and XCos
> can generate C code. Maybe there will be something like embedded Scilab to
> create C code in the future. Therefore, it is possible to combine the
> advantages of interpreted numerical software and fast C programs.
>
> For these reasons, I conclude that numerical software will continue to run
> interpreted code for the time being.
>
> Best regards
> Harald Galda, Dr. Eng. (J)
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* Pedro Ledoux <p_ledoux at yahoo.com.br>
> *An:* users at lists.scilab.org
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, den 2. Oktober 2010, 4:01:50 Uhr
> *Betreff:* [scilab-Users] Why an interpreter?
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> Scilab, Matlab, Octave and others softwares of this kind uses an
> interpreter not a compiler. Is there any specific rason to do it? I don't
> know deeply the technical details about interpreters and compilers but i've
> become curious about it. In long interative process a compiled code runs
> much more faster because in a interpreter to each interation the language
> commands should be converted to machine language and in a compiled one it
> happens only one time when the object code is generated. Was told me that in
> a interpreter debug is more easy. So why those everyoments chose do
> numerical process by an interpreted language?
>
>
>
>
>




-- 
Sumit Adhikari,
Institute of Computer Technology,
Faculty of Electrical Engineering,
Vienna University of Technology,
Gußhausstraße 27-29,1040 Vienna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20101002/097326a7/attachment.htm>