scripting languages vs statically compiled ones

[Richard Blackwood]

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?