Hallöchen! Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander Schmolck a écrit : > >> Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> [...] >>> >>> It's not a "scripting" language, and it's not interpreted. >> >> Of course it is. What do you think happens to the bytecode? > > Ok, then what do you think happens to 'machine' code ? > > "interpreted" usually means "no compilation, all parsing etc > redone at each execution", which is not the case with a > bytecode/vm based implementation. That sounds like an implementation feature rather than a language feature. Besides, it's not a very sensible distinction in my opinion. Much better is to think about the structure of the interpreting machine. I'm not a CS person (only a physicist) but if you *need* a bytecode interpreter on top of the CPU interpretation, it's an interpreted language to me. I've had such a discussion about TeX already, and my personal conclusion was that you can defend almost any opinion in that area. However, one should ensure that the definitions make a pragmatic and useful distinction. Tschö, Torsten. -- Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus ICQ 264-296-646 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
