scripting languages vs statically compiled ones
richardblackwood at cloudthunder.com
Sat Oct 30 05:06:45 CEST 2004
Cameron Laird wrote:
>In article <mailman.5640.1099009520.5135.python-list at python.org>,
>Richard Blackwood <richardblackwood at cloudthunder.com> wrote:
>>Is Python not bytecode interpreted? It has no JIT with the standard
>>distro but otherwise, it is no less byte-code than Java. Misleading.
>Like many propositions in this thread, this one bears repetition
>and examination. Even people in authority reiterate that "Java
>is compiled, while Python is interpreted."
So now Java is compiled eh? I suppose that is more accurate but I
prefer to say that Java is bytecode compilable whereas Python is
bytecode interpreted. So with a broad stroke, I would say I am inline
with those in "authority", though I tend to be more specific.
> Outsiders are going
>to hear this said by people who appear to be speaking truthfully.
Indeed, appearances can be deceiving. ;-)
>It's at best misleading, of course, as Mr. Blackwood recognizes.
>There ought to be a way to armor the innocent against it ...
Quite right, just tell them Java is byte-code compiled and Python is
bytecode interpreted (with the ability to be bytecode compilable). I
wonder, how does Psyco match up with Java's JIT?
More information about the Python-list