interpreter vs. compiled

[Bob Martin]

in 75186 20080725 050433 Tim Roberts <timr at probo.com> wrote:
>castironpi <castironpi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Compiling a program is different than running it.  A JIT compiler is a
>>kind of compiler and it makes a compilation step.  I am saying that
>>Python is not a compiler and in order to implement JIT, it would have
>>to change that fact.
>
>And I'm saying you are wrong.  There is NOTHING inherent in Python that
>dictates that it be either compiled or interpreted.  That is simply an
>implementation decision.  The CPython implementation happens to interpret.
>The IronPython implementation compiles the intermediate language to native
>machine language.
>
>>> of Python that uses .NET.  In that case, the code *IS* JIT compiled to
>>> assembly when the program starts.
>>
>>But still not the user's code, only the interpreter, which is running
>>in assembly already anyway in CPython.
>
>In CPython, yes.  In IronPython, no; the user's code is compiled into
>machine language.  Both of them are "Python".
>--
>Tim Roberts, timr at probo.com
>Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

It's amazing how many people cannot differentiate between language and implementation.
How many times have I read "x is an interpreted language"?
I know many languages are designed for either compilation or interpretation, but I have
used C and Pascal interpreters as well as Java and Rexx compilers.