Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a >> disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language. >> >> Python is compiled. It has a compiler. It even has a built-in >> function "compile". It's just not compiled to *machine code* -- >> but with even machine code often running on a virtual machine >> in the CPU(s), the distinction is far less important now than >> it was when Sun described Java as a compiled language despite >> the lack of JIT compilers. > > When folks say Python is an interpreted language I think they > mean it informally--they just mean you have to run an interpreter > to execute it. *How* it's translated is irrelevent to the > *informal* meaning. > > And I'd further argue that the informal meaning is the only one > that makes any sense. >
Many people still talk about lisp as "interpreted" despite the fact that there have been compilers (that compile to machine code) for decades. I'm not sure it's really a property of a language, rather of an implementation. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
