Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Dave Hansen]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:36:50 -0600 in comp.lang.python, "Chris Mellon"
<arkanes at gmail.com> wrote:

[...]
>
>When asked to name some interpreted (or scripting) languages, they'll
>name some off - perl, python, ruby, javascript, basic...
>
>They won't say Java. Ask them why Python is interpreted and Java isn't
>and you'll have a hard time getting a decent technical answer, because
>Python isn't all that different from Java in that regard, especially
>pre-JIT versions of Java.

IMHO, it's marketing.  Soon after (as soon as?) Sun introduced Java,
they announced microprocessors that would implement the JVM natively.
Thus on those machines, Java would not be "interpreted."

AIUI, the reason native Java chips never took off is 1) limited
utility (who wants a chip that can only run Java programs?), and 2)
performance on native chips wasn't even better than JVMs running on
commodity microprocessors, so what's the point?

>
>Probably the most accurate definition of "interpreted" as it is used
>in the wild is "one of these languages: perl, python, perl, ruby,
>etc". That is, you're essentially claiming that Python is interpreted
>because everyone thinks of it that way, technical correctness be
>damned.

I think another reason "perl, Python etc." are known to be interpreted
and Java is not is the interactivity afforded by former group.  This
is also why, e.g., lisp and Forth are thought of as interpreted (at
least by those with only a passing familiarity with the languages),
though native compilers for both languages are readily available.

Regards,
                                        -=Dave

-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.