CFP last date
01 May 2024
Call for Paper
June Edition
CAE solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming June edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 01 May 2024

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
An Improve Shannon Fano Data Compression Algorithm using Residue Number System

T.D. Lawal L.O. Olatunbosun K.A. Gbolagade
Random Articles
Reseach Article

Qualitative Assessment of Compiled, Interpreted and Hybrid Programming Languages

by Ampomah Ernest Kwame, Ezekiel Mensah Martey, Abilimi Gilbert Chris
journal cover thumbnail

Communications on Applied Electronics
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 7 - Number 7
Year of Publication: 2017
Authors: Ampomah Ernest Kwame, Ezekiel Mensah Martey, Abilimi Gilbert Chris
10.5120/cae2017652685

Ampomah Ernest Kwame, Ezekiel Mensah Martey, Abilimi Gilbert Chris . Qualitative Assessment of Compiled, Interpreted and Hybrid Programming Languages. Communications on Applied Electronics. 7, 7 ( Oct 2017), 8-13. DOI=10.5120/cae2017652685

@article{ 10.5120/cae2017652685,
author = { Ampomah Ernest Kwame, Ezekiel Mensah Martey, Abilimi Gilbert Chris },
title = { Qualitative Assessment of Compiled, Interpreted and Hybrid Programming Languages },
journal = { Communications on Applied Electronics },
issue_date = { Oct 2017 },
volume = { 7 },
number = { 7 },
month = { Oct },
year = { 2017 },
issn = { 2394-4714 },
pages = { 8-13 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://www.caeaccess.org/archives/volume7/number7/764-2017652685/ },
doi = { 10.5120/cae2017652685 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2023-09-04T20:03:17.121623+05:30
%A Ampomah Ernest Kwame
%A Ezekiel Mensah Martey
%A Abilimi Gilbert Chris
%T Qualitative Assessment of Compiled, Interpreted and Hybrid Programming Languages
%J Communications on Applied Electronics
%@ 2394-4714
%V 7
%N 7
%P 8-13
%D 2017
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

Programmers use programming languages to develop software. But how efficiently programmers can write software depends on the translation mode that is used by them. In computing, the general modes of execution for modern high-level languages are interpretation, compilation and hybrid. The selection of these general modes of execution is dependent on the choice of programming language. In this paper, the study compared compiled, interpreted and hybrid programming languages under translation process, execution, efficiency, portability, maintainability, and security. The paper contains idea about how software development are influenced by the decision to use compiler, interpreter or hybrid as a mode of translation hence purpose of this research. It was observed that compiled, interpreted and hybrid programming languages have their strengths and weakness, hence the need for programmers to critically analyzed their goal and how the various programming languages will help to achieve that goal before choosing a language.

References
  1. Aggeliki K. (2011). Machine Language vs High-Level Languages, Bright Hub Engineering; Retrieved: 2nd April, 2017. http://www.brighthubengineering.com/consumer-appliances-electronics/115635-machine-language-vs-high-level-languages/
  2. Agrawal, R., DeMichiel, L. G., & Lindsay, B. G. (1991). Static type checking of multi-methods Vol. 26, No. 11, pp. 113-128. ACM.
  3. Alpern, B., Cocchi, A., & Grove, D. (2001). Dynamic Type Checking in Jalapeño. In Java Virtual Machine Research and Technology Symposium.
  4. Appiah, O., & Martey, E. M. (2015). Magnetic Bubble Sort Algorithm. International Journal of Computer Applications IJCA, 122(21), 24-28. doi:10.5120/21850-5168
  5. Arnold, K., Gosling, J., & Holmes, D. (2005). The Java programming language. Addison Wesley Professional.
  6. Bates, P. C., & Wileden, J. C. (1983). High-level debugging of distributed systems: The behavioral abstraction approach. Journal of Systems and Software, 3(4), 255-264.
  7. Blum Richard, (2005). Professional Assembly Language, Wiley Publishing, Inc. ISBN: 0-7645-7901-0
  8. Crary, K. (2003). Toward a foundational typed assembly language (Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 198-212). ACM.
  9. Eck David J., (2011). Introduction to Programming Using Java, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456.
  10. Gosling, J., & McGilton, H. (1995). The Java language environment. Sun Microsystems Computer Company, 2550.
  11. Grillmeyer, O. (1998). Compilers and Interpreters. In Exploring Computer Science with Scheme (pp. 319-372). Springer New York.
  12. Jiménez, M., Palomera, R., & Couvertier, I. (2014). Assembly Language Programming. In Introduction to Embedded Systems (pp. 155-218). Springer New York.
  13. João Costa Seco, 2014, Interpretation and Compilation of Programming Languages, Retrieved: 22nd May, 2017. http://docentes.fct.unl.pt/sites/default/files/jrcs/files/ln01-overview.pdf
  14. Knowles, K., & Flanagan, C. (2010). Hybrid type checking. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 32(2), 6.
  15. Krauss Aaron, (2015). Programming Concepts: Compiled and Interpreted Languages; Retrieved: 16th May, 2017. https://thesocietea.org/2015/07/programming-concepts-compiled-and-interpreted-languages/
  16. Manson, K. S. (2006). U.S. Patent No. 7,085,708. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  17. McInnes James, (2014). How is source code typically kept secret?; Retrieved: 5th June 2017. https://www.quora.com/How-is-source-code-typically-kept-secret
  18. Morgan, C. (1994). Programming from specifications. Prentice Hall.
  19. Najjar, W. A., Bohm, W., Draper, B. A., Hammes, J., Rinker, R., Beveridge, J. R., ... & Ross, C. (2003). High-level language abstraction for reconfigurable computing. Computer, 36(8), 63-69.
  20. Organ, D. V., Deome, M. E., Techasaratoole, R., & Greene, V. N. (2001). Capturing and displaying computer program execution timing." Washington, DC: U.S.
  21. Redish, K. A., & Smyth, W. F. (1986). Program style analysis: A natural by-product of program compilation. Communications of the ACM, 29(2), 126-133.
  22. Rouse Margaret, (2005). Bytecode; retrieved: 16th May, 2017 http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/bytecode
  23. Sanner, M. F. (1999). Python: a programming language for software integration and development. J Mol Graph Model, 17(1), 57-61.
  24. Schmidt, J. W. (1977). Some high level language constructs for data of type relation. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 2(3), 247-261.
  25. Stroustrup, B. (2013). The C++ programming language. Pearson Education.
  26. Torben Ægidius Mogensen, (2010). Basics of Compiler Design, Anniversary edition, University of Copenhagen, ISBN 978-87-993154-0-6.
  27. Watson, D. (2017). Compilers and Interpreters. In A Practical Approach to Compiler Construction (pp. 13-36). Springer International Publishing.
  28. Xi, H., & Harper, R. (2001). A dependently typed assembly language. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 36(10), 169-180.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Compiled Interpreted Hybrid Programming Language

Powered by PhDFocusTM