4 ms·

Here lies the problem. Just because a component of the v8 compiler is called an “interpreter” it doesn’t mean that JavaScript (via v8) is an interpreted languag

Here lies the problem. Just because a component of the v8 compiler is called an “interpreter” it doesn’t mean that JavaScript (via v8) is an interpreted language. Which is the point I’m making. Back in the 80s and 90s scripting languages often had no compilation stage aside maybe building an AST and were pretty much 100% interpreted. Anything that ran from byte code was considered compiled (like BASIC vs Java, VB6). Interpreters often ran line by line too. These days most scripting languages that were traditionally interpreted languages run more like Java except compiled JIT rather than AOT. But it seems people have warped “interpreted” to mean JIT to compensate for the advancements in scripting runtimes. That is a bastardisation of the term in my opinion. But when you look through this thread you’ll see the same error repeated over and over.

saagarjha 5y ago
No, that isn't true. Java and JavaScript are typically run through a good, optimizing JIT runtime; Python rarely is. Hence the general classification.
- laumars 5y ago
  Go isn’t run through an optimising runtime either. Plenty of compiled languages aren’t. However Python code is still transpiled to stack based byte code that runs on a virtual machine. If you want to get pedantic then that byte code is interpreted but frankly where do you draw the line, are retro console emulators interpreters since they translate instructions from on architecture to another in much the same way? Technically yes but we don’t like to describe them in that way. This is why I keep saying term “interpreted language” used to mean something quite specific in the 80s and 90s but these days it’s pretty much just slang for “JIT”.