Terry Reedy wrote: [...] > I am being picky because various people have claimed that Python suffers > in popularity because it is known as an 'interpreted language'. So maybe > advocates should be more careful than we have been to not reinforce the > misunderstanding.
I sometimes wonder if it might help people understand the situation if people described as "interpreted in the same way Java is" (However I think that risks confusing things since python doesn't generally come with a JIT subsystem, yet). That said, if you do describe it that way, it'd be more accurate to describe the python binary as a compiler/runtime rather than interpreter since it'd be more accurate. After all: $ python somefile.py Is very close to being the same as: $ javac somefile.java $ java somefile.class It strikes me as ironic that python would probably gain more credibility with some circles if it had two binaries like this, even though it'd be a step backwards from a usability perspective :-) Personally I agree that any language that is described as interpreted has an image issue. However I'm not sure who's problem that is - some people claim it's "Python's problem", however personally I'd view as a problem for the people who buy into "interpretted bad, compiled good" argument. After all, they're the ones limiting themselves, and missing out on a whole class of languages (of which python is just one of course) ! Michael. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list