[Shootout-list] Two notes: Pascal and CMUCL

[kerochan ii]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:01:17 +0200, Bengt Kleberg
<bengt.kleberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Brent Fulgham wrote:
> > On 2004-09-30 10:07:45 -0700 kerochan ii <kerochan2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I think a different category might be added like
> >> "compiles to standalone code".
> >
> >
> > It's a reasonable question, and one that is being debated
> > on the list, but I don't think we are fine-grained enough to
> > describe this difference on the site right now.
> 
> when/if there is a change to the shootout site it could be a good idea
> to include this kind of information. the question is where and how.
> 
> where would you, kerochan ii, like to see it? and how would you like to
> see it?
> 
> 
> bengt

The table on the page [ http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/langs.php ]
could contain a separate coloumn, just right to ``Implementation'',
something like ``Implementation details''.
Possible values could be:
 * Interpreted
 * JIT (Compiled to byte-code at startup, which is then interpreted, ie: Psyco)
 * Incremental JIT (Compiled to byte-code as executed, which is then
interpreted, ie: Python)
 * Byte-code (Compiled to byte-code, which can be executed later, ie:
Java's .jar)
 * Stand-alone byte-code (Byte-code with the binary runtime inlined,
ie: OCaml's ocamlc -custom)
 * Compiled (To native code which needs a run-time, ie: CMUCL)
 * Stand-alone (ie: OCaml's ocamlopt)

PS: I understand that CMUCL compiles to native code just like GCC
does. The difference shows when you need to distribute binaries. With,
say, CMUCL's native binaries, you also need to distribute a whole Lisp
system.