Hi,
2014-03-05 15:41 GMT+01:00 FRIGN <d...@frign.de>: > Well, you could also compile shell-scripts if you had the time to write > the proper interfaces. Does this make it a compiled language? Hell no! Yes, if shell-scripts are _compiled_ to native code, then it would make them _compiled_. > It still is a scripting language, even if you can compile it with some tweaks. If you don't think the definition of a compiled language is that it can be compiled down to native code, I would love to hear your definition. Some even think that Java can be counted as a "compiled language", even though it only compiles down to bytecode (until JIT-ed). Regular Python also compiles down to byte code (.pyc/.pyo), so if you should happen to think Java is a compiled language, surely you must think that Python is a compiled language too. C programs can also be run as scripts, but it doesn't make C a scripting language. I think the compiled/scripting distinction is pretty meaningless. It's more interesting to consider which languages are faster and if low level code can be called or not (can you call C functions, could you write an operating system?). Arguably, expressiveness and developer productivity (however measured) might be even more important. Awaiting your definition of a "compiled language". -- Sincerely, Alexander Rødseth
