On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:24:18 -0800, Alf P. Steinbach <al...@start.no>
wrote:
* 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.
Well, sure. Can you explain, then, what sense you meant it in?
You'll also find it impossible to rigorously define "dynamic language"
in a general way so that that definition excludes C++. <g>
Or, for that matter, suitably clever assembler. I'm not arguing with you
there.
So, to anyone who understands what one is talking about, "interpreted",
or e.g. "slow language" (as was the case here), conveys the essence.
Not when the context isn't clear, it doesn't.
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.
Or for the purpose of greater understanding, surely - and isn't that the
point?
--
Rami Chowdhury
"Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity" --
Hanlon's Razor
408-597-7068 (US) / 07875-841-046 (UK) / 0189-245544 (BD)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list