Hallöchen! Carl Friedrich Bolz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Torsten Bronger wrote: > >> [...] >> >> My definiton would be that an interpreted language has in its >> typical implementation an interpreting layer necessary for >> typical hardware. Of couse, now we could discuss what is >> "typical", however, in practice one would know it, I think. In >> case of Python: CPython and all important modern processors. > > Well, if we take any modern Intel/AMD chip (which could be > described as "typical), a C++ program would fit the "interpreted" > definition, since the processor does not execute the machine code > directly but rather breaks it down into smaller microcode > instruction -- a process that could be described as intepretation. This is an interpreting layer within the hardware, not necessary for it. > Another problem with the definition: what would you call a C++ > program that is running on top of an emulator? Compiled. I said "necessary for typical hardware". > [...] I think that the disctinction between "interpreted" and > "compiled" (whatever both means) is really just not sensible at > all. The question is whether such features have to be considered when choosing the right tool for a task. I think, yes. Whereas C is very close to the fastest code you can get because it works very closely to how the machine itself works, Python can well be one or one and a half orders of magnitude farther away. No problem since you can get the best of both worlds but: You must be aware of it. Tschö, Torsten. -- Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus ICQ 264-296-646 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
