Python versus Perl

[Michael Sparks]

Terry Reedy wrote:
[...]
> I am being picky because various people have claimed that Python suffers
> in popularity because it is known as an 'interpreted language'.  So maybe
> advocates should be more careful than we have been to not reinforce the
> misunderstanding.

I sometimes wonder if it might help people understand the situation if
people described as "interpreted in the same way Java is" (However I think
that risks confusing things since python doesn't generally come with a JIT
subsystem, yet).

That said, if you do describe it that way, it'd be more accurate to describe
the python binary as a compiler/runtime rather than interpreter since it'd
be more accurate.

After all:
   $ python somefile.py

Is very close to being the same as:
   $ javac somefile.java
   $ java somefile.class

It strikes me as ironic that python would probably gain more credibility
with some circles if it had two binaries like this, even though it'd be a
step backwards from a usability perspective :-)

Personally I agree that any language that is described as interpreted has an
image issue. However I'm not sure who's problem that is - some people claim
it's "Python's problem", however personally I'd view as a problem for the
people who buy into "interpretted bad, compiled good" argument. After all,
they're the ones limiting themselves, and missing out on a whole class of
languages (of which python is just one of course) !


Michael.