Re: [dev] What is bad with Python

From: Alexander Rødseth <>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:20:43 +0100


2014-03-05 15:41 GMT+01:00 FRIGN <>:
> Well, you could also compile shell-scripts if you had the time to write
> the proper interfaces. Does this make it a compiled language? Hell no!

Yes, if shell-scripts are _compiled_ to native code, then it would
make them _compiled_.

> It still is a scripting language, even if you can compile it with some tweaks.

If you don't think the definition of a compiled language is that it
can be compiled down to native code, I would love to hear your

Some even think that Java can be counted as a "compiled language",
even though it only compiles down to bytecode (until JIT-ed). Regular
Python also compiles down to byte code (.pyc/.pyo), so if you should
happen to think Java is a compiled language, surely you must think
that Python is a compiled language too.

C programs can also be run as scripts, but it doesn't make C a
scripting language.

I think the compiled/scripting distinction is pretty meaningless. It's
more interesting to consider which languages are faster and if low
level code can be called or not (can you call C functions, could you
write an operating system?). Arguably, expressiveness and developer
productivity (however measured) might be even more important.

Awaiting your definition of a "compiled language".

  Alexander Rødseth
Received on Wed Mar 05 2014 - 18:20:43 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Mar 05 2014 - 18:24:06 CET