Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr> writes:

> Alexander Schmolck a écrit :
>
>> Bruno Desthuilliers <bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr> writes:
>> 
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> It's not a "scripting" language, and it's not interpreted.
>>
>> Of course it is. What do you think happens to the bytecode?
>
> Ok, then what do you think happens to 'machine' code ?
>
> "interpreted" usually means "no compilation, all parsing etc
> redone at each execution", which is not the case with a
> bytecode/vm based implementation.

That sounds like an implementation feature rather than a language
feature.  Besides, it's not a very sensible distinction in my
opinion.  Much better is to think about the structure of the
interpreting machine.  I'm not a CS person (only a physicist) but if
you *need* a bytecode interpreter on top of the CPU interpretation,
it's an interpreted language to me.

I've had such a discussion about TeX already, and my personal
conclusion was that you can defend almost any opinion in that area.
However, one should ensure that the definitions make a pragmatic and
useful distinction.

Tschö,
Torsten.

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