> > I does count as a language, but AFAIK it is interpreted, 
> which removes
> > most of the implementation challenges. 
> 
> Why is that? Isn't an interpreter more challenging than a 
> compiler, in the
> sense that the interpreter can do everything the compiler 
> can, but not vice
> versa? Or is it the optimization of this that is the challenge?

For the aspect that was discussed (unit-safeness) the challenge is not
(so much) to detect unit errors at run time, but to detect all unit
errors at compile time, and get the compiled program as effective (size
and speed) as the equivalent unit-unaware program.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist