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. Formally: >>> hasattr(Language, 'iterpreted') False >>> hasattr(Implementation, 'interpreted') True ;-) -- Neil Cerutti -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
