No, gp is correct, the 'real executables' are a VM image with the interpreter baked in. The only native code in the binary is the interpreter. Janet code does not compile to machine code.

▲

terminalbraid 6 days ago | parent [-]

I understand your point, but by similar logic I can argue any language is interpreted because nothing compiles down to microcode. The point is you don't need janet-specific external dependencies in the environment. I don't differentiate between this and an inefficient compiler.

▲

packetlost 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I can argue any language is interpreted because nothing compiles down to microcode

Not every processor architecture uses microcode, so this doesn't hold up.

> The point is you don't need janet-specific external dependencies in the environment

Sure.

> I don't differentiate between this and an inefficient compiler

A compiler is the general term here, but the target is not. Targeting the native architecture for a CPU vs targeting a bytecode VM are quite different and have pretty important implications for performance, portability, memory usage, etc.

▲

xigoi 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The distinction matters because the resulting executable is not (significantly) faster than running the program as a script.

	▲	massung 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think the distinction (from the OP’s perspective) is that it’s “just an app” to the end user. When I download the Slack desktop app, I might know it’s running on electron because I’m a programmer. But I didn’t have to download and install nodejs or anything else. As far as I’m concerned it’s a completely self contained application. The end user needn’t download and install Janet or even know that Janet exists. That can obviously be done with any interpreted language, but Janet makes it really simple out of the box.