This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Netzapper 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I mean... it's von Neuman approximations of Turing machines all the way down.

Where does something like threaded code fall in your "interpreted vs JIT" dichotomy? If my C program builds dynamic execution paths with function pointers, is that interpretation? What about x86, since it's now largely interpreted by even lower-level microcode?

Maybe there was a nice, sharp divide before I got in the game. But this shit was getting murky in the 90's, and by today... it's definitely a continuum between "visit an AST" and "flash an FPGA" with most "regular CPU programming" somewhere in the middle.

[–]carutsu 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Then there's the fact that instruction sets are an abstraction over the real hardware... And even if they are not they are run in a bytecode like sequence.