Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

Carl Friedrich Bolz <cfbolz at gmx.de> writes:

> Torsten Bronger wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> My definiton would be that an interpreted language has in its
>> typical implementation an interpreting layer necessary for
>> typical hardware.  Of couse, now we could discuss what is
>> "typical", however, in practice one would know it, I think.  In
>> case of Python: CPython and all important modern processors.
>
> Well, if we take any modern Intel/AMD chip (which could be
> described as "typical), a C++ program would fit the "interpreted"
> definition, since the processor does not execute the machine code
> directly but rather breaks it down into smaller microcode
> instruction -- a process that could be described as intepretation.

This is an interpreting layer within the hardware, not necessary for
it.

> Another problem with the definition: what would you call a C++
> program that is running on top of an emulator?

Compiled.  I said "necessary for typical hardware".

> [...] I think that the disctinction between "interpreted" and
> "compiled" (whatever both means) is really just not sensible at
> all.

The question is whether such features have to be considered when
choosing the right tool for a task.  I think, yes.  Whereas C is
very close to the fastest code you can get because it works very
closely to how the machine itself works, Python can well be one or
one and a half orders of magnitude farther away.  No problem since
you can get the best of both worlds but: You must be aware of it.

Tschö,
Torsten.

-- 
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus            ICQ 264-296-646