Is Python really a scripting language?

[Paul Rudin]

Neil Cerutti <horpner at yahoo.com> writes:

> On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE-THIS-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a
>> disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language.
>>
>> Python is compiled. It has a compiler. It even has a built-in
>> function "compile". It's just not compiled to *machine code* --
>> but with even machine code often running on a virtual machine
>> in the CPU(s), the distinction is far less important now than
>> it was when Sun described Java as a compiled language despite
>> the lack of JIT compilers.
>
> When folks say Python is an interpreted language I think they
> mean it informally--they just mean you have to run an interpreter
> to execute it. *How* it's translated is irrelevent to the
> *informal* meaning.
>
> And I'd further argue that the informal meaning is the only one
> that makes any sense.
>

Many people still talk about lisp as "interpreted" despite the fact
that there have been compilers (that compile to machine code) for
decades. 

I'm not sure it's really a property of a language, rather of an
implementation.