"Thomas Bartkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The "interpreted" nature of the existing Python language has little to do
> with how it compares to other languages. Most languages, including BASIC,
> are available in either flavor - interpreted or compiled. And either way,
> it's still the same language. That being said, one would expect an
> interpreted language (like Python!) to be a bit more approachable for
> beginners. The mechanics of producing a working program are just simpler
> when the language is interpreted, no matter what that language might be.
On what basis do you think the mechanics of producing a working
language are easier because the language is interpreted? My experience
is that interpreted C (yes, I really did work with a C interpreter -
and it was the only interpreter I've ever used that had no compilation
phase whatsoever) is no easier to deal with than compiled C. Ditto for
the various flavors of LISP I've worked with.
Now, having an interactive environment with a REPL makes learning the
language and checking things a lot easier. Those tend to be rare for
compiled languages. But interpreted languages don't necessarily have
them, as witnessed by Java and Perl. You have to get your REPL as a
third party package for those languages.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
