Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an
implementation of a language.
2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code.
You keep saying that, and in theory you're right. But I'm still inclined
to disagree with it, since the practical reality is different. Python is
indeed compiled to byte code, but if you compare that byte code with
assembly code you'll see that there's a whole world of difference
between the two, largely because of the dynamical nature of Python. Fact
is that Python was designed from the start to run on a virtual machine,
not on the native hardware.
C OTOH was designed to be compiled to assembly code (or directly to
machine code) and as a result there are no (or virtually) no
implementations that interpret C or compile it to bytecode.
I love Python, but IMHO it's a bit silly to maintain that the fact that
Python compiles to byte code instead of assembly code/machine code is
purely a matter of implementation; on the contrary, I believe it's a
result of its design. I also think that there's a large difference
between byte code and machine code (in Python's case; I haven't looked
at other languages), and that it's a bit silly to try to trivialize that
difference.
--
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge
faster than society gathers wisdom.
-- Isaac Asimov
Roel Schroeven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
