Is R language interpreted?

views:

212

answers:

+2 Q:

Is R language interpreted?

I am trying to find out whether the R programming language is interpreted or compiled. Can't seem to find this info.

Edit I should have said interpreted or compiled to begin with. Commenters are absolutely right - static or dynamic has nothing to do with whether the language is interpreted or dynamic.

+1 A:

R doesn't compile. There are projects that try to get it compiled: http://www.hipersoft.rice.edu/rcc/ , http://www.rforge.net/r2c/ but I can't find any currently supported.

That said, the performance on modern hardware seems reasonable for even larger workloads I have thrown at it (millions of records).

Godeke 2009-11-04 22:14:14

Those aren't ready yet. See this related question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1452235/deploying-r-without-r-into-c-or-c

Shane 2009-11-04 22:31:01

The folks at Revolution Computing (http://www.revolution-computing.com/) are working on a version of R that's supposedly a few times faster than the standard distribution. It's still interpreted, though.

John D. Cook 2009-11-04 22:36:19

John, REvo R is still essentially the same R but it ships with MKL (faster blas) and (somewhat) easier parallel usage. The engine is identical for all intents and purposes.

Dirk Eddelbuettel 2009-11-05 00:31:21

Two downvotes for providing links to incomplete compilers (which make the point that it is interpreted pretty clear)? Is "read the FAQ" *really* the new gold standard round here?

Godeke 2009-11-09 16:17:08

+5 A:

Yes, the R language is interpreted.

NawaMan 2009-11-04 22:15:31

Just to clarify your answer, yes it is what?

Shane 2009-11-04 22:16:47

Question: Is R language interpreted? -- Answer: Yes, it is.

NawaMan 2009-11-04 22:21:09

Thanks. I was just reading the full question: "I am trying to find out whether the R programming language is interpreted or static or dynamic."

Shane 2009-11-04 22:28:28

+1 A:

It could be either... you can build a compiler or interpreter for any programming language. The language SHOULD be agnostic to the implementation :)

Polaris878 2009-11-04 22:16:00

Absolutely true, but in practice, some languages get compiled and some get interpreted. When's the last time you saw a C interpreter? Not that you can't write one, but no one ever bothers to do so.

Michael Kohne 2009-11-04 22:18:34

why the downvote?

Polaris878 2009-11-04 22:21:20

Still, educating people that there's a distinction they're missing is a good thing.

2009-11-04 22:38:06

+7 A:

The R FAQ says: "The core of R is an interpreted computer language".

Michael Kohne 2009-11-04 22:16:59

+4 A:

Polaris878 is absolutely right. It's better to say that the default implementation of some language is interpreter or not. But not the language itself.

The question sounds very strange for me. "interpreted or static or dynamic"... How can we compare translation strategy with typing?

And once again we should be very careful with terminology. It's better to say language with static/dynamic typing than static/dynamic language.

kemiisto 2009-11-04 22:29:15

+1 for raising very important points. It's especially important to dispel the OP's apparent notion that interpreted/static/dynamic are three possible values for the same attribute of a language. The latter two are completely orthogonal.

rmeador 2009-11-04 23:16:52

I should have said interpreted or compiled.

AngryHacker 2009-11-05 00:35:58

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Is R language interpreted?

related questions