in 75186 20080725 050433 Tim Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >castironpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>Compiling a program is different than running it. A JIT compiler is a >>kind of compiler and it makes a compilation step. I am saying that >>Python is not a compiler and in order to implement JIT, it would have >>to change that fact. > >And I'm saying you are wrong. There is NOTHING inherent in Python that >dictates that it be either compiled or interpreted. That is simply an >implementation decision. The CPython implementation happens to interpret. >The IronPython implementation compiles the intermediate language to native >machine language. > >>> of Python that uses .NET. In that case, the code *IS* JIT compiled to >>> assembly when the program starts. >> >>But still not the user's code, only the interpreter, which is running >>in assembly already anyway in CPython. > >In CPython, yes. In IronPython, no; the user's code is compiled into >machine language. Both of them are "Python". >-- >Tim Roberts, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
It's amazing how many people cannot differentiate between language and implementation. How many times have I read "x is an interpreted language"? I know many languages are designed for either compilation or interpretation, but I have used C and Pascal interpreters as well as Java and Rexx compilers. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list