Compiled code is faster than Interpreted one ?

.NET provides a sort of half-way house between traditional compilation and interpretation.

Instead of the .NET source code being compiled once and for all into native code for the platform concerned, it's compiled initially into a platform-independent 'intermediate language' (IL) together with metadata describing this code.

When the .NET program is run, the IL is then compiled 'on the fly' to native code for the underlying platform by the 'just in time' compiler (JIT) of the Common Language Runtime (CLR). This is done on a method by method basis as each method is called and the native code is then cached in case the method is called again.

This is clearly not as fast as traditional compilation (as used by C/C++ for instance) because there is insufficient time to do as many optimizations though, on the other hand, account can be taken of information available at runtime which would not be available to a traditional compiler.

However, it's fast enough for most purposes and much faster than interpreted languages.

2 Replies

Know the answer? Post it — somebody with the same question will find it here.

Vulpes13y ago
.NET provides a sort of half-way house between traditional compilation and interpretation.

Instead of the .NET source code being compiled once and for all into native code for the platform concerned, it's compiled initially into a platform-independent 'intermediate language' (IL) together with metadata describing this code.

When the .NET program is run, the IL is then compiled 'on the fly' to native code for the underlying platform by the 'just in time' compiler (JIT) of the Common Language Runtime (CLR). This is done on a method by method basis as each method is called and the native code is then cached in case the method is called again.

This is clearly not as fast as traditional compilation (as used by C/C++ for instance) because there is insufficient time to do as many optimizations though, on the other hand, account can be taken of information available at runtime which would not be available to a traditional compiler.

However, it's fast enough for most purposes and much faster than interpreted languages.
Sunny Sharma13y ago
I think Compiled code is faster than the interpreted one in terms of code execution. Reason being the translation overhead in compiled code is incurred just once, thereafter it only needs to be loaded and executed Whereas Interpreted code must be parsed, interpreted and then executed each time the program is run, thereby adding up to the cost of running the program.