Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by etiene 3197 days ago
Lua is not compiled to machine code. It compiles to an intermediate bytecode, which is then interpreted. So you could say it is a VM. Also bear in mind, LuaJIT is not Lua. It's a different implementation.

I guess you misinterpreted my comment. I didn't imply there are no reasons to compare C and Ruby. I said the reason is important and the way you portray that, and the way you portray your results, changes things.
1 comments
igouy 3197 days ago
> Lua is not compiled to machine code…

Do you think Roberto Ierusalimschy is confused about that ?

Again, here's what the creator of Lua says -- "… the distinguishing feature of interpreted languages is not that they are not compiled, but that any eventual compiler is part of the language runtime…"

EDIT:

Is that not what you mean by "interpreted language" ?

link
etiene 3197 days ago
> Do you think Roberto Ierusalimschy is confused about that ?

No, of course not. I think you are. You are clearly misinterpreting his words. I will repeat, (PUC)Lua is not compiled to machine code, but to an intermediate bytecode form. Those are completely different things, and what I said does not come in conflict at all with the quote you took from PiL, so I don't know what you are confronting me about.

link
igouy 3196 days ago
> Lua is not compiled to machine code, but to an intermediate bytecode form.

Correct.

Now look at what Roberto Ierusalimschy means by "interpreted language": "… the distinguishing feature of interpreted languages is not that they are not compiled, but that any eventual compiler is part of the language runtime and that, therefore, it is possible (and easy) to execute code generated on the fly."

Is that what you mean by "interpreted language" ?

link