On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 06:09:14 -0500, Dan Sommers wrote: > On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 18:06:10 +1100, > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't want to nit-pick all my way through the article, which is very >> decent and is worth reading, but I will say one more thing: you >> describe Python as "an expressive, interpreted language" ... > > So does <http://www.python.org/doc/Summary.html>.
Then it is time it stopped. In fairness, from a technical perspective, describing Python as interpreted is not wrong -- as I've pointed out, machine code is interpreted too -- but neither does it give the correct impression. Many people have argued that the terms interpreted and compiled are no longer meaningful in this day and age. I wouldn't go that far, but given the negative connotations of "interpreted" I think it is both better and more accurate to emphasis the fact that Python code is byte-code compiled and only use the I-word when discussing Python's interactive environment and eval/exec. If I could think of another word for interpreter, I would use it even then. People who are smart and care about correctness -- the "reality-based community" -- often don't realise just how many decisions are made on the basis of unfacts like "everybody knows interpreted languages are slow and inefficient, that's what my professor told me when I did a semester of C in 1982, we better stick to Java or .Net". -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
