"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "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. <snip> Because: Type code Run code. Is easier to explain to the uninitiated than Type Code, compile code, make executable, run executable. And - if a beginner is asking the question, there is no point getting mired in an arcane discussion about all the in between mix and match flavors that are constantly at play in the programming world. As I said - "Interpreted languages are bit more approachable for beginners" Thomas Bartkus -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
