language interpreters/ interpreted languages weaknesses?

[Martijn Faassen]

Ian Clarke <I.Clarke at strs.co.uk> wrote:

>> I think Java can compete in popularity with Perl. And Java's (usually)
>> interpreted.

> I did consider Java, however the Java source code is not interpreted
> directly, it is compiled to Java byte code.  Ok, so right now most Java
> byte code is interpreted, but hopefully in the future dedicated chips
> will be available.  I am aware that Python code is also compiled to an
> intermediate byte-code, however (so far as I know) the compiled bytecode
> is rarely distributed without the companion source.  Whether Java (as a
> whole) is an interpreted or compiled language is something that could be
> debated by people with more free time than me. I personally consider it
> to be a compiled language, as it requires a compiler.

Well, that's a rather strange distinction. Most interpreted languages
work this way. It'd be fairly easy to make a Python 'compiler' that
makes .pyc files from .py files without immediately executing them.

Java happens to *look* a lot like compiled languages like C++, but why
insist on calling it a compiled language when it's a bytecode interpreter?
(most of the time, with all kinds of advanced tricks, and the bytecode
is more low level than usual, etc, etc, but it *is* bytecode).

Regards,

Martijn