3 ms·

One can use compilers for interactive development, too. That's not a feature of being 'interpreted'.

• benj111 8y ago
  Interpreters tend to have repls, which tends to influence how development happens. I'm not stating an absolute law though. I think you may be misinterpreting my original question. It was asked out of ignorance, it wasn't a challenge. I was hypothesising some kind of self modifying code, or realtime adaptive optimising or something. I was attempting to show you my current level of knowledge so you could ELI7 instead of 5 :)
  • akavel 8y ago
    It's mostly just that the feature is always useful (that's why it's present so often in interpreted langauges), but muuuuuch harder to do for non-interpreted languages. Notably, a subsequent goal for the Nim feature is indeed to add a full-blown REPL to Nim too, I believe. Also, worth to note that some non-interpreted languages do also have REPLs, e.g.: Haskell, OCaml, C++ (! — see CLING).
    • benj111 8y ago
      I'm aware of plenty of exceptions myself. Forth, and I've even come across an ASM REPL. Theres exceptions the other way, Awk is interpreted but doesn't as far as I'm aware have a REPL, Sed doesn't either. But then both of those have varying implementations, so there could be exceptions to the exceptions.
  • p_l 8y ago
    The very term REPL comes from a language that's been used compiled to native code since 1960s (Lisp) In fact, "compiled" programs on many platforms require an interpreter to set them up by dynamic code loading (including modifications if needed). In ELF header, it's called "program interpreter", which gives a path to a program that understands this particular file and can assembly a running image in memory