4 ms·
There is no such thing like an interpreted/compiled language - even with some kind of eval functionality. It's implementations that work as interpreters or comp
by stewbrew 4y ago
There is no such thing like an interpreted/compiled language - even with some kind of eval functionality. It's implementations that work as interpreters or compilers. Also, a compiler doesn't necessarily emit machine code. It could also emit byte code that is later on intepreted or compiled to something else.
- encryptluks2 4y agoSo computer science is wrong and you are right?
- chrisseaton 4y agoNo they're right - languages can be implemented with an interpreter or with a compiler or with something in between. Some require at least something in between as they have dynamic code execution. Saying 'interpreted language' is just short for 'a language that is usually interpreted'.
- encryptluks2 4y agoBut the difference between compiled vs interpreted languages is correct as stated.
- chrisseaton 4y agoThe point is no language is inherently compiled - people just choose to compile it. Any language that can be compiled can also be interpreted.
- stewbrew 4y agoNo. The language per se is neither interpreted nor compiled.
- stewbrew 4y agoIt's a shortcut that often isn't really useful. Also the statement about compiled languages is wrong the way it's written. The OP states: 1. Interpreted language (whatever that is) are necessarily distributed as source code and an interpreter evaluates the source code line by line. 2. Compiled languages (whatever that is) are not distributed as source code and they are necessarily transformed to machine code. Both statements are wrong as they are.