Hallöchen!
bruno at modulix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Torsten Bronger wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> 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.
>
> The only pragmatic and useful distinction I can see here is
> between languages that have to re-parse the whole source for each
> and every executions ('interpreted') and languages that don't.
Well, I think that it's fair to say that there are by principle deep
run time differences between CPython and, say, a typical
C++-compiled program. Your definition would not reproduce that. I
think it's also fair to say that these differences should be known
if somebody tries to find the best tool for a job. After all, they
include advantages, too.
My definiton would be that an interpreted language has in its
typical implementation an interpreting layer necessary for typical
hardware. Of couse, now we could discuss what is "typical",
however, in practice one would know it, I think. In case of Python:
CPython and all important modern processors.
Tschö,
Torsten.
--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus ICQ 264-296-646
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
