* Rami Chowdhury:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:32:28 -0800, Alf P. Steinbach <al...@start.no>
wrote:
This also seems religious. It's like in Norway it became illegal to
market lemon soda, since umpteen years ago it's soda with lemon
flavoring. This has to do with the *origin* of the citric acid,
whether natural or chemist's concoction, no matter that it's the same
chemical. So, some people think that it's wrong to talk about
interpreted languages, hey, it should be a "language designed for
interpretation", or better yet, "dynamic language", or bestest,
"language with dynamic flavor". And slow language, oh no, should be
"language whose current implementations are perceived as somewhat slow
by some (well, all) people", but of course, that's just silly.
Perhaps I'm missing the point of what you're saying but I don't see why
you're conflating interpreted and dynamic here? Javascript is unarguably
a dynamic language, yet Chrome / Safari 4 / Firefox 3.5 all typically
JIT it. Does that make Javascript non-dynamic, because it's compiled?
What about Common Lisp, which is a compiled language when it's run with
CMUCL or SBCL?
Yeah, you missed it.
Blurring and coloring and downright hiding reality by insisting on misleading
but apparently more precise terminology for some vague concept is a popular
sport, and chiding others for using more practical and real-world oriented
terms, can be effective in politics and some other arenas.
But in a technical context it's silly. Or dumb. Whatever.
E.g. you'll find it impossible to define interpretation rigorously in the sense
that you're apparently thinking of. It's not that kind of term or concept. The
nearest you can get is in a different direction, something like "a program whose
actions are determined by data external to the program (+ x qualifications and
weasel words)", which works in-practice, conceptually, but try that on as a
rigorous definition and you'll see that when you get formal about it then it's
completely meaningless: either anything qualifies or nothing qualifies.
You'll also find it impossible to rigorously define "dynamic language" in a
general way so that that definition excludes C++. <g>
So, to anyone who understands what one is talking about, "interpreted", or e.g.
"slow language" (as was the case here), conveys the essence.
And to anyone who doesn't understand it trying to be more precise is an exercise
in futility and pure silliness -- except for the purpose of misleading.
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
