| so, is javascript an interpreted language?
what about jits?
...or babel, for what is worth. if languages are "compiled" why does both C and C++ (and also java etc...) need a "memory model"? bare physical address and real threads should be enough, no? > Languages are a specification, and an implementation working together in perfect harmony, with absolutely no undefined behaviour at all, yes, keep walking now. never talked about "quality" or "comprehensiveness" of the specs.
Just that languages are specs, not implementations. Yes, in the real world you will use gcc, and you will learn that you write some text stuff and it will transform to an executable for you. Still, why don't you use the right terminology? The problem is that, if a book slip on this -- so basic -- definition, how good can it be on the complex parts? |
I just don't see this complaint as valid. From the discussion garnered here, C be both a compiled and interpreted language. This is a book about C in the context of the compiled variant, and has references to gcc and clang. The level of detail and nuance when using terminology here is used to match the context the terminology appears in. Excess verbiage for terminology isn't a panacea to confusion, in fact it can increase it. Can't "C is a compiled language" and "C is a interpreted language" both be true independently?
Don't get me wrong, I like reading perspectives like yours, because I just discovered a bunch about C interpreters.
But I feel like you are asking for a "spec" level document on modern C, when you are reading a more practical work on it.