re: What common programming concept has the wrong name? VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: I'd be curious as to where you got the data that "most people" use the first sentence of the wikipedia page for compiler as the definition. From ...

Put simply, do you ship machine code?
Yes: it's compiled
No: it's interpreted

I'd say, Yes: it's assembled.

Compiled is really, really confusing, because of the varying usage. As I said, you can compile to another language, to bytecode, to object code, to machine code...but you can only assemble to machine code.

I'm getting this distinction from the conventional compilation toolchain, btw. We compile first to some form of intermediary code, and then we assemble to the machine code.

Just bear in mind the most in academia use the term Compiled, as the term assembled, means to assemble assembly to machine code.

Oh, I'm well aware. I've historically used it the same...in fact, I'd prefer if that's all it meant.

Unfortunately, that distinction is lost on most...and sadly, part of that is from communities surrounding some interpreted languages misusing the term "compiled" for so long to dodge the fact their language is interpreted.

That, in turn, is because "interpreted" has been used in an almost derogatory manner for so long.

Language evolves, and not always for the better. Trying to cram the linguistic refrigerator biscuit dough back in the tube is a losing fight.

code of conduct - report abuse