> C++ code can be compiled into assembly language for direct execution on the OS
Honestly it sounds like these guys don't know how a computer works at all.
Honestly it sounds like these guys don't know how a computer works at all.
"When you first start programming, understanding the difference between a compiled and an interpreted language can be quite hard. After you've been doing it for a while, the difference will seem really obvious, and impossible to miss. When you've been doing it even longer, you'll find that you are no longer sure of what the difference really, and will likely struggle to explain it to a beginner."
I would expect a seasoned C++ database developer to be able to understand these nuances.
there's certainly a technical difference between assembly and machine code, but it's pretty common to use the word "assembly" by metonymy with the latter
> the OS is not doing any “direct execution”
OSes have native executable formats for which execution most certainly has less steps than executing a .js, a .jar or a .sh, which I would absolutely call "direct execution". The criterion can be defined I would guess as - does the OS / environment need to launch a separate process / specific steps such as setting up an interpreter before getting to the code you want to execute ? but most likely there's a finer distinction to be made.
Likewise there are JIT and AOT compilers for turning those JVM bytecodes or MSIL into machine code as well, including not shipping a VM rather a runtime.
So it does show a lack of understanding on how compilers work.