• Malgas ( Malgas@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Needless to say, they’re wrong.

        Not least because there’s no such thing as a “compiled” or “interpreted” language.

        Which is to say that it’s a property of the tooling rather than the language itself. There’s nothing stopping anyone from writing a C interpreter or a Python compiler.

        • balsoft ( balsoft@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not least because there’s no such thing as a “compiled” or “interpreted” language.

          I’d say there is (but the line is a bit blurry). IMHO the main distinction is the presence (and prevalence) of eval semantics in the language; if it is present, then any “compiler” would have to embed itself into the generated code, thus de-facto turning it into a bundled interpreter.

          That said, the argument that interpreted languages are somehow not programming languages is stupid.

      • frezik ( frezik@midwest.social ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, once you know all the details, the distinction disappears. The term doesn’t clarify understanding.

        If I had to make a distinction, it’d be that scripting languages are meant to be a simple way to serve a specific niche. Things like SQL or Excel formulas. It doesn’t apply to Python.

    • 0x0 ( 0x0@lemmy.zip ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      One is:

      • a scripting/interpreted language needs an interpreter to be installed on the target system in order to run
      • a programming/compiled language needs a compiler on the host machine and will run as-is standalone in the target machine

      /me ducks for cover