"Michael Sparks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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.
If Java calls its runtime bytecode interpreter a 'runtime' rather than 'interpreter', so can we. Ditto, if applicable, to .NET clr. Still more accurate, I think, is 'intergrated compiler and runtime'. > 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 :-) Yes. The integration is a practical necessity for interactive mode with alternative compile and execute. For batch mode, integration consists of the very nice built-in mini-make. > 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) ! That has been my response. And as a Python programmer, that is the end of it. But as a responder/advocate, I am beginning to accept that the misperception is wide enough to also be a bit my problem. Hence my small effort for a more effective vocabulary. Thanks for your contribution. Terry J. Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list