Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Carl Friedrich Bolz]

Torsten Bronger wrote:
> Well, I think that it's fair to say that there are by principle deep
> run time differences between CPython and, say, a typical
> C++-compiled program.  Your definition would not reproduce that.  I
> think it's also fair to say that these differences should be known
> if somebody tries to find the best tool for a job.  After all, they
> include advantages, too.
> 
> My definiton would be that an interpreted language has in its
> typical implementation an interpreting layer necessary for typical
> hardware.  Of couse, now we could discuss what is "typical",
> however, in practice one would know it, I think.  In case of Python:
> CPython and all important modern processors.

Well, if we take any modern Intel/AMD chip (which could be described as 
"typical), a C++ program would fit the "interpreted" definition, since 
the processor does not execute the machine code directly but rather 
breaks it down into smaller microcode instruction -- a process that 
could be described as intepretation.

Another problem with the definition: what would you call a C++ program 
that is running on top of an emulator? Does a language become 
interpreted just by running the program on top of an emulator? Why is 
the python interpreter different from an emulator in this respect? I 
think that the disctinction between "interpreted" and "compiled" 
(whatever both means) is really just not sensible at all.

Cheers,

Carl Friedrich