4 ms·

Might want to start by asking the core Python community. Check out the first sentence on wiki.python.org. Nowadays it's the norm for interpreted languages to

Might want to start by asking the core Python community. Check out the first sentence on wiki.python.org. Nowadays it's the norm for interpreted languages to be JIT-compiled. They still universally call themselves interpreted languages because the jitter is an implementation detail, and the use of one does nothing to negate the characteristics they're trying to advertise when describing themselves as interpreted languages. Think of it this way: Can I take a text file containing source code in the language and execute it anywhere that has a special program for executing files written in that language (commonly known as an interpreter)? Or do I have to manually perform an intermediate step of converting the program to some binary representation using a special program for doing that (commonly known as a compiler), and then execute the output that program produces?

lispm 12y ago
There are several compiler-only Lisp implementations which can execute source from text. Nobody there would call them interpreter because of that. In Lisp we call them interpreter, when the implementation traverses the source code during execution. If it compiles the source to some byte-code or machine code, we call in Compiler. The incremental nature of a compiler, then does not make it that we would call it an Interpreter. We would call it an incremental compiler. That's a compiler, which can compile all expression, regardless of the size of the expression, not just 'whole programs'.
- ggchappell 12y ago
  > There are several compiler-only Lisp implementations which can execute source from text. Why not? I would.
  - ggchappell 12y ago
    Oops. My "Why not?" above is in reference to this: > Nobody there would call them interpreter because of that.
    - lispm 12y ago
      Why would you call an 'compiler' an 'interpreter'? The following is Clozure Common Lisp. Every single input is compiled directly to machine code. Feed it source text and everything is compiled. Each and every expression. Why should I call a direct native code compiler an 'Interpreter'? Makes no sense. ? (let ((f (lambda (a) (+ 1 a)))) (disassemble f) (funcall f 2)) ;;; (lambda (a) (+ 1 a)) L0 (leaq (@ (:^ L0) (% rip)) (% fn)) ; [0] (cmpl ($ 8) (% nargs)) ; [7] (jne L57) ; [10] (pushq (% rbp)) ; [12] (movq (% rsp) (% rbp)) ; [13] (pushq (% arg_z)) ; [16] ;;; (+ 1 a) (leaveq) ; [17] (testb ($ 7) (% arg_z.b)) ; [18] (jne L39) ; [22] (addq ($ 8) (% arg_z)) ; [24] (jo L32) ; [28] (repz) (retq) ; [30] L32 (jmpq (@ .SPFIX-OVERFLOW)) ; [32] L39 (movl ($ 8) (% arg_y.l)) ; [39] (jmpq (@ .SPBUILTIN-PLUS)) ; [44] ;;; #<no source text> L57 (uuo-error-wrong-number-of-args) ; [57] 3 ; result
      - ggchappell 12y ago
        An interpreter is a box that takes code in some programming language and executes it. A compiler is a box that takes code is some programming language and translates it into another programming language. Traditionally, the twain ne'er did meet. However, many (most?) modern interpreters include a compiler as part of their implementation. Using a compiler in this manner is "Just in Time" (JIT) compilation. So a box that takes Clozure Common Lisp and converts it to machine code is a compiler. A box that takes Clozure Common Lisp, feeds it into this compiler to obtain machine code, and executes this machine code immediately, is an interpreter, using JIT compilation to do its interpretation.
        lispm 12y ago
        > An interpreter is a box that takes code in some programming language and executes it. The interpreter executes that language, not another. > A box that takes Clozure Common Lisp, feeds it into this compiler to obtain machine code, and executes this machine code immediately, is an interpreter, using JIT compilation to do its interpretation. It's neither an interpreter not using JIT compilation. It's an AOT compiler. It's just an incremental compiler.

lispm 12y ago

There are several compiler-only Lisp implementations which can execute source from text. Nobody there would call them interpreter because of that. In Lisp we call them interpreter, when the implementation traverses the source code during execution. If it compiles the source to some byte-code or machine code, we call in Compiler. The incremental nature of a compiler, then does not make it that we would call it an Interpreter. We would call it an incremental compiler. That's a compiler, which can compile all expression, regardless of the size of the expression, not just 'whole programs'.

ggchappell 12y ago
> There are several compiler-only Lisp implementations which can execute source from text. Why not? I would.
- ggchappell 12y ago
  Oops. My "Why not?" above is in reference to this: > Nobody there would call them interpreter because of that.
  - lispm 12y ago
    Why would you call an 'compiler' an 'interpreter'? The following is Clozure Common Lisp. Every single input is compiled directly to machine code. Feed it source text and everything is compiled. Each and every expression. Why should I call a direct native code compiler an 'Interpreter'? Makes no sense. ? (let ((f (lambda (a) (+ 1 a)))) (disassemble f) (funcall f 2)) ;;; (lambda (a) (+ 1 a)) L0 (leaq (@ (:^ L0) (% rip)) (% fn)) ; [0] (cmpl ($ 8) (% nargs)) ; [7] (jne L57) ; [10] (pushq (% rbp)) ; [12] (movq (% rsp) (% rbp)) ; [13] (pushq (% arg_z)) ; [16] ;;; (+ 1 a) (leaveq) ; [17] (testb ($ 7) (% arg_z.b)) ; [18] (jne L39) ; [22] (addq ($ 8) (% arg_z)) ; [24] (jo L32) ; [28] (repz) (retq) ; [30] L32 (jmpq (@ .SPFIX-OVERFLOW)) ; [32] L39 (movl ($ 8) (% arg_y.l)) ; [39] (jmpq (@ .SPBUILTIN-PLUS)) ; [44] ;;; #<no source text> L57 (uuo-error-wrong-number-of-args) ; [57] 3 ; result
    - ggchappell 12y ago
      An interpreter is a box that takes code in some programming language and executes it. A compiler is a box that takes code is some programming language and translates it into another programming language. Traditionally, the twain ne'er did meet. However, many (most?) modern interpreters include a compiler as part of their implementation. Using a compiler in this manner is "Just in Time" (JIT) compilation. So a box that takes Clozure Common Lisp and converts it to machine code is a compiler. A box that takes Clozure Common Lisp, feeds it into this compiler to obtain machine code, and executes this machine code immediately, is an interpreter, using JIT compilation to do its interpretation.
      - lispm 12y ago
        > An interpreter is a box that takes code in some programming language and executes it. The interpreter executes that language, not another. > A box that takes Clozure Common Lisp, feeds it into this compiler to obtain machine code, and executes this machine code immediately, is an interpreter, using JIT compilation to do its interpretation. It's neither an interpreter not using JIT compilation. It's an AOT compiler. It's just an incremental compiler.