blocks|key|1153097|text|速度是重要的，是的，但通常使用脚本语言的情况下，执行的速度超过了I/O的成本，所以它不是最终的，全部。更重要的是语言的结构和特点。首先处理这些问题，然后处理执行速度问题。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1153098|尽管如此，我认为最终如果您想要构建一种新的通用语言，您将走他们中大多数人正在走的路线，即在执行过程中预编译为字节码和JIT编译。|1153099|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

Speed is important, yes, but usually scripting languages are used in cases where speed of execution is outweighed by I/O costs, so it's not the end-all, be-all. Of far more importance is the language structure and features. Work on those first, then deal with execution speed. 

That said, I think ultimately if you're looking to build a new general purpose language, you're going to go the route that most of them are going, which is pre-compilation into a bytecode and JIT compilation during execution.

blocks|key|2366742|text|我不明白为什么这些天有人会给翻译写信。有两个很好的虚拟机，CLR+(%2BDLR)和JVM。为任何一个运行时编写编译器都很简单，然后您就可以获得与大量现有代码的互操作性，再加上出色的标准库，再加上JIT编译器，在许多情况下使您的语言速度不成问题(当然比任何解释器都快)。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2366743|如果您想要开发一种不仅仅是开发人员的好奇心的语言，这无疑是当前的发展方向。|2366744|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

I don't understand why anyone would write an interpreter these days. There are two excellent virtual machines, the CLR (+DLR) and the JVM. It's trivial to write a compiler for either runtime, and then you get the advantage of interoperability with the massive amounts of existing code out there, plus fantastic standard libraries, plus JIT compilers that will make the speed of your language a non-issue in many cases (certainly faster than any interpreter.)

If you want to make a language that will be more than just a curiosity to developers, this is definitely the way to go these days.

blocks|key|2366391|text|正如开发人员所需要的那样快。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2366392|没有规则，只是需要喂食。|2366393|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

As fast as the developer need it to be.

There is no rules, just needs to be feed.

blocks|key|2411744|text|这样的问题没有唯一的答案。没有一个答案可以适用于所有可能的目的和受众。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2411745|可能要考虑的一个最大的因素是，您是否打算让该语言主要是独立的，还是与其他语言一起使用。如果您编写了一些像Lua这样的东西，它主要(或仅用于)与其他东西一起使用(在Lua的例子中是C)，那么速度就变得不那么重要和有趣了。如果你写的东西主要是由自己使用的，那么速度就开始变得更重要了。|2411746|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

There is no only answer to a question like this. No one answer can apply to all the possible purposes and audiences.

Probably the single biggest factor to take into account is whether you intend for the language to be mostly standalone, or used in conjunction with something else. If you write something like Lua that's intended primarily (or exclusively) for use along with something else (C in Lua's case) then speed becomes much less relevant and interesting. If you write something that's used primarily by itself, speed starts to matter a whole lot more.

blocks|key|1152704|text|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1152705|Yes|ordered-list-item|1152706|It取决于如何使用您的语言。|1152707|No。没有理由不能设计一种快速可读的语言，这样很难成为忽略性能的借口。|1152708|1152709|你真的必须根据你的实验目标来回答这些问题。|1152710|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|-4|4|5|6|M|7|@]|8|@]|9|$]]|$1|A|3|B|4|C|6|N|7|@]|8|@]|9|$]]|$1|D|3|E|4|C|6|O|7|@]|8|@]|9|$]]|$1|F|3|G|4|C|6|P|7|@]|8|@]|9|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|4|5|6|Q|7|@]|8|@]|9|$]]|$1|I|3|J|4|5|6|R|7|@]|8|@]|9|$]]|$1|K|3|-4|4|5|6|S|7|@]|8|@]|9|$]]]|L|$]]

<ol>
<li>Yes</li>
<li>It depends on how your language is intended to be used.</li>
<li>No. There is no reason one cannot design a readable language that is fast so that hardly would appear to be an excuse for ignoring performance.</li>
</ol>

You really have to answer these questions for yourself based on the goals of your experiments.

blocks|key|2411880|text|速度总是相关的，除非你的语言是无用的。如果它有用的话，人们会尝试用它来做一些繁重的工作，如果当他们尝试的时候，它不会掉到脸上，那总是更好。这并不意味着优化速度是值得的(这取决于您的目标)，它也不告诉您如何进行优化(例如，快速编译字节码与重新处理如何访问用C编写的高级库，以便解释器在调用它之前有更少的工作要做)。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2411881|速度和抽象之间的最佳平衡取决于所解决问题的类型。计算机时间通常不如人的时间有价值，但两者都有价值。完全忽略计算机时间，考虑工作人员和等待结果的人将花费多少时间仍然是有用的；当编码%2B执行时间最小化时，语言的用户应该最大程度地高兴。(如果你想做一个最有说服力的商业案例，你可以按编者和用户的薪水来衡量权重。)|2411882|由于前面两点，我认为解释语言完全忽略性能是个坏主意。当然，如果语言本身是试验性的，那么您必须问问自己，您想花多少时间来改进性能，而不是添加特性。如果初始实现将被逐步优化，因为它被更频繁地使用并用于更高要求的任务，那么初始实现就会变得非常缓慢。JavaScript就是一个很好的例子。|2411883|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$]]

Speed is always relevant unless your language is useless. If it's useful, people are going to try to use it to do some heavy lifting, and if it doesn't fall on its face when they try, that's always better. This doesn't mean that it is worthwhile to optimize for speed (that depends on your goals), nor does it tell you how (e.g. fast compilation to bytecode vs. reworking how you access a high-level library written in C so that the interpreter has even less to do before calling it).

The optimal balance between speed and abstraction depends on the types of problems being solved. Computer time is generally less valuable than people's time, but both are worth something. Neglecting computer time entirely, it's still useful to consider how much time will be taken total by people working and waiting for results; users of the language ought to be maximally happy when the total coding + execution time is minimized. (Weight by salaries of coders vs. users if you want to make a maximally strong business case.)

Because of the previous two points, I think it's a bad idea for interpreted languages to completely ignore performance. Of course, if the language is experimental itself, you have to ask yourself how much time you want to spend working on performance instead of adding features. It can be okay for an initial implementation to be horribly slow if it will be gradually optimized as it is used more frequently and for more demanding tasks. JavaScript is an excellent example of this.

blocks|key|2366808|text|我个人会选择一种有一个很好的API的语言。如果你看一下Lua，人们编写的Lua+C代码的90%25只是样板。如果出现了一种速度较慢的语言，使用了更好的C%2B%2B+API，那么我马上就会切换到它。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2366809|最终，“过早优化是万恶之源”，也就是说，您的语言需要一些伟大的特性，而且它需要快速。如果它和汇编程序一样可用，并且用户必须实现操作系统，那么它是没有好处的。|2366810|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

I'd go for a language with a great API, personally. If you look at Lua, 90% of the Lua C code people write is just boilerplate. If a slower language, with much better C++ API came around, I'd switch to that in an instant.

Ultimately, "premature optimization is the root of all evil", and that is, your language needs some great features, AND it needs to be fast. It's no good being fast if it's as usable as assembler, with the user having to implement the operating system.

<ul>
<li>Is speed of the (main/only viable) implementation of an interpreted programming language a criteria today?</li>
<li>What would be the optimal balance between speed and abstraction?</li>
<li>Should scripting languages completely ignore all thoughts about performance and just follow the concepts of rapid development, readability, etc.?</li>
</ul>

I'm asking this because I'm currently designing some experimental languages and interpreters

How fast should an interpreted language be today?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

教程

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云智能顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云AI代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

功能1上新10个字符

功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符。

功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符。

功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符

功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符

功能4上新

文章&问答评论现已支持表情

全新交互，全新视觉，新增快捷键、悬浮工具栏、高亮块等功能并同时优化现有功能，全面提升创作效率和体验

社区富文本编辑器全新改版！诚邀体验～ 

精选全网热门MCP server，让你的AI更好用 🚀

💥开发者 MCP广场重磅上线！

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

聚焦“写作效率、视觉美观与运行性能”三方面进行全面升级，为您提供更高效、稳定的创作环境

社区富文本&Markdown编辑器全新改版上线，欢迎大家体验!

诚挚邀请您参与本次调研，分享您的真实使用感受与建议。您的反馈至关重要，感谢您的支持与参与！

社区新版编辑器体验调研

abstraction?Should 是解释性编程语言(主要/唯一可行的)实现的速度，是当今的一个标准？，速度和脚本语言之间的最佳平衡是什么?完全忽略了所有关于性能的思想，而只是遵循快速开发、可读性等概念？。我问这个问题是因为我目前正在设计一些实验语言和翻译

问今天翻译语言的速度应该有多快？
EN

回答 7

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问今天翻译语言的速度应该有多快？EN

回答 7

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问今天翻译语言的速度应该有多快？
EN