this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
1369 points (98.9% liked)

RetroGaming

19662 readers
557 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 7 points 1 month ago (7 children)

Your thought is correct. The basic problem is that higher level languages contain a lot of additional information that is lost in the compilation process.

[–] Saleh 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

But do we need this information then? E.g. shouldn't it be possible to just write what the assembler is doing as a c++ code?

E.g. high level languages also support stuff like bitwise operators and so on.

[–] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Take for example Haskell. It's a functionnal, typed language. In Haskell, at compile time, the compiler analyzes all the types of all your functions and if they all match, it drops them completely. There is no type information at all left in a compiled Haskell program, because the compiler can know ahead of runtime if it is correct.

[–] Saleh 1 points 1 month ago

Thank you. That is a good example.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)