4 ms·
>“Python, because you do not need a compiler and it's very VERY easy to run your programs and test.” That really depends on your definition of "compiler". If y
by anaphor 13y ago
>“Python, because you do not need a compiler and it's very VERY easy to run your programs and test.”
That really depends on your definition of "compiler". If your definition is "translates a high level language into machine code" then the popular implementations don't do that. But the most popular implementation does pretty much act like a typical compiler except that it generates code for a VM, not a physical machine.
On a more on topic note, these sorts of things are pretty pointless because it's just the Emperor's nose thing really.
"Nobody was permitted to see the Emperor of China, and the question was, What is the length of the Emperor of China's nose? To find out, you go all over the country asking people what they think the length of the Emperor of China's nose is, and you average it. And that would be very "accurate" because you averaged so many people. But it's no way to find anything out; when you have a very wide range of people who contribute without looking carefully at it, you don't improve your knowledge of the situation by averaging. "
- eshyong 13y agoI think the original meaning of that quote is more "I don't need an intermediate compiling/linking step before I run my program," not "Python doesn't need a compiler because it doesn't lex/parse/generate code." I agree it's an ambiguous and confusing statement though.