Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Chris Mellon]

On 2/20/06, Donn Cave <donn at drizzle.com> wrote:
> Quoth Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au>:
> ...
> | Nobody denies that Python code running with no optimization tricks is
> | (currently) slower than compiled C code. That's a matter of objective
> | fact. Nobody denies that Python can be easily run in interactive mode.
> | Nobody denies that *at some level* Python code has to be interpreted.
> |
> | But ALL code is interpreted at some level or another. And it is equally
> | true that at another level Python code is compiled. Why should one take
> | precedence over the other?
>
> I have no idea, what precedence?  All I'm saying is that Python matches
> what people think of as an interpreted language.  You can deny it, but
> but it's going to look like you're playing games with words, and to no
> real end, since no one could possibly be deceived for very long.  If you
> give me a Python program, you have 3 choices:  cross your fingers and
> hope that I have the required Python interpreter version, slip in a
> 25Mb Python interpreter install and hope I won't notice, or come clean
> and tell me that your program needs an interpreter and I should check to
> see that I have it.


You're correct as far as it goes, but can you provide a reasonable
definition for "interpreted" that matches the common usage? Most
people can't.

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.

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.

There is an obvious difference between Python and C. Nobody would deny
that. But it's a fairly hard thing to *quantify*, which is why people
make sloppy categorizations. That's not a problem as long as there
isn't prejudice associated with the categorization, which there is.

I wonder how "interpreted" people would think Python is if the
automagic compilation to .pyc was removed and you had to call
"pythonc" first.

>
>         Donn Cave, donn at drizzle.com
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>